Well. I'm going to buck the trend and agree with merlyn.

When I first read the node I assumed from the module name that it was mildly-subtle humour on poor locking strategies. Later posts seem to indicate this was not the intention.

The code has many problems (e.g. not using atomic operations). It needed a warning. I'm glad merlyn made his post. I will ++ it when tomorrows votes roll in.

That said - just one sentence on why the module was bad (maybe just a reference to 'perldoc -q lock') wouldn't have been too much effort would it :-)