in reply to Re^7: Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ?
in thread Is there a problem with using barewords as filehandles ?

removing features from the language

You're mistaken. Temporarily retracted while the discussion about Perl 8+ is ongoing; Perl 7 will however not remove them.

Therefore, "globals" and file-scope lexicals actually have the same scope ...

That's another whole paragraph explaining things that I know (I too have a background in C and plenty more) to support a point nobody is disputing.

... and the same risks.

No, this does not follow from the explanation you gave, since among other things, it ignores that bareword filehandles are not protected against typos like lexicals are.

File-scope lexicals look like lexicals, but have effectively the same scope as globals.

More repetition of already discussed and undisputed points.

In terms of surprise action-at-a-distance, they carry the same risks.

No, because this ignores the issues of bareword filehandles clashing with package and sub names, among others.

You continuing to "stick your head in the sand" and ignore the disadvantages of bareword filehandles and advantages of lexical filehandles will not make them go away. This is not the basis for a rational discussion, so I'm out.