-- you haven't shown the concrete use case at hand, nor convinced me of the abstract idea that there may be a use case.

Is *that* a requirement of this place in order to ask this question?

If not, why persist in asking it?

-- You seem to want to keep your use case to yourself,

Is that against the rules?

-- , discussing the use of heavy machinery

Do you see me make any request for discussion of the heavy machinery?

-- provided idle amusement for a few minutes,

Glad to have been of service.

-- You seem to want to keep your use case to yourself,

Yes. Is that so hard to respect?

I wish to keep it to myself, because I have no interest in having other people throw their opinions of what they think I should or should not do into the discussion. (fat chance.)

The question was clear and simple. The answer equally so. No room for prolonged discussion or heated debate. Just "how"? Like this. Done.

But there is always someone, or multiple somones, that feel the need to try and impose their views on life, the universe and everything, on everyone else.

And that was why this thread was started anonymously. But, there are always those around that can (mis)use their privileges to see through the sham of anonimity, and pop up to assert their opinion.

This subthread, as with the other subthreads of a similar ilk, are exactly what I wished to avoid by posting anonymously.

If you look back up to my first reply, I started it with

If you, as you claim, do have a real use case for Scope::Upper, I'm really interested in hearing about it.

This curiosity is my main drive, and I was hoping to find a real use case instead of some vague alludements.

I don't understand how the privilege to post a reply to your question can be considered misuse. But why do you think I would need it to see through the "sham of anonimity"?

I think the main conclusion to draw for you from this exchange is, that it is maybe not your nickname (or the user account you purport to represent), but your way of asking questions that provokes replies that you don't like. This may not be the answer you wanted, but in the end, neither of us got the answer we wanted in this thread.

-- neither of us got the answer we wanted in this thread.

I missed this piece of presumption. Actually, I did. From the only response that addressed the question I asked.

And finally, this

-- but your way of asking questions that provokes replies that you don't like.

Shows this

-- I don't understand how the privilege to post a reply to your question can be considered misuse. But why do you think I would need it to see through the "sham of anonimity"?

to be either the pretence of misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt at misdirection.

A truly Anonymous Monk can only ever post one question.

For you to assert that you have devined a pattern in the style of "questions" from an Anonymous Monk is absurd. One does not a pattern make.

So, to talk of "questions", and imply a pattern, you must associate this question, with previous questions assumed or known to be from the same source. You are not normally the assumptive kind, so the logical conclusion is that Co-rion crossed-referenced the IP of this Anonymous Monk with that of some logged-in user.

That's *misused privilege*.

Or maybe, you were informed by some other abusive God. Either way.

-- This curiosity is my main drive,

I have no desire to indulge your curiosity. I have enough of my own to deal with.

-- your way of asking questions that provokes replies that you don't like.

If you mean, asking only the question to which I want the answer, without providing extraneous information on which interefering busy-bodies can hang their coats, perhaps. But, it doesn't work because those same interfering busy-bodies will invent reasons to indulge themselves.

In this particular case, I have been using a solution to a particular problem for a while. I works, but has a flaw. I saw Scope::Upper and it sounded like a possible solution to that flaw, but I couldn't make it work, so I asked my question. As soon as tobyink posted his reply, I saw my misunderstanding, and realised that Scope::Upper could never provide the solution I was hoping for. Job done. Or should have been.

Instead. We get all these useless subthreads 992853, 992889, 992952 that could never be of help to me, because they make no attempt to answer the question I asked.

I do not give a flying fig whether you feel Guard is a better solution to your imagined application, than Scope::Upper.

I do not give a flying fig whether tye thinks his imagined application for Scope::Upper will "break encapsulation", despite that it could not for mine.

I have no interest in debating either. If I had wanted to solicite suggestions for a solution to my application, I would have asked that question. I did not.

I do not give a flying fig whether you or anyone considers that I have asked the wrong question. I ask the questions I ask, because that is what I want to know. I ask them in the way I do, because I want just that answer, not a debate about other approaches, alternative solutions, alternative questions.

If you don't know the answer to the question, don't answer it. If you do know, but don't want to answer (either it or me) that is fine too.