If your answer to "How is Perl::Critic to do this thing?" is "Magic", then I'd very much like to see your implementation.

Do what?

Giving the wrong answer sometimes is undesirable. Giving the wrong warning doubly so.

Gee, if only perlcritic had some way to differentiate levels of warnings ... no, it must always be 100% perfect

apply some magic and better ignore this anonymous troll! =)

cheers Rolf

Apply some magic and better ignore the troll! =)

Anonymous Monk expresses a few simple ideas and chromatic has to start conflating them on purpose

 $1 ... foo() there is no ambigiuity, the potential exists for this bug

so what is the problem with a user asking for extra warnings, extra debugging mode, extra potential criticism, even if they don't cover 100% of all situations, even if they can be wrong, even if it requires a special compile of perl for descend into xs, or running scandeps, or whatever?

oh right, must be a troll

P::C depends on PPI.

PPI does per definition static parsing.

What you're asking is far beyond the scope of P::C!

But if you think it's feasible, you're more than welcome do demonstrate we are wrong by releasing such a new magic tool.

So ... either you lack the know how to understand the limitations of parsing a dynamic language or you are trolling us.

In both cases no need to waist more time with someone who hides behind anonymity.

Cheers Rolf