It's not clear that those constructs are always bugs, but they all deserve investigation. P::C can detect those in a large codebase, along with other constructs which we now know to be risky.

These risky constructs deserve a prominent place in e.g. perltrap (which up to this day is full of obsolete perl4-perl5 traps. I'll try to write a patch.) That's all that is necessary. That documentation should show up in the perl docs, not as a Perl::Critic policy complaint after the fact.

If somebody uses risky constructs in production code, that programmer is a risk to your business. And risky constructs aren't just the ones you mention, but every half-known construct.

Do you still occasionally use pseudo-static lexical variables when you shouldn't? Don't code drunk, then. Do you need Perl::Critic to detect them in your code? I bet all you get is false positives.

Now I don't know what's happened to you and BrowserUK that your hands jerk off the keyboard in shock whenever someone suggests that your team should consider agreeing on the use of a tool that can help you identify things in code that you need to think about, but that's fine.

It's because it is the wrong tool which doesn't solve the problems it promises to solve!

I have much the same reaction whenever I hear of people that have a "personal firewall" on their box. I'm always glad if I can direct them to the Personal Firewall FAQ. If you need Perl::Critic, your problem is somewhere else. See my other post.

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}