Alright, i'll give it one more try to see if i can get through to you.

There is no need for you to "try to get through" to me. I understand what you (and others) are saying. I just disagree with your conclusions, and I've tried (hard) to present my reasoning in detail. You can either accept or reject my reasoning, but re-stating your flawed position over again will not change my reasoning, nor my conclusions.

You completely miss the crucial difference between a simple string comparison and a regex to deparse something.

No I didn't. But you apparently didn't read half my post, because it you had you have read the bit where I showed that there is no good reason to "deparse" the error string.

"Exhibit one" fully rebutted!

Have you even tried that

Of course I did, but the synopsis code, all in a single file, is not useful. So I tried and posted a realistic example. It doesn't work:

C:\test>exceptions 1 0
Can't locate object method "throw" via package "MyExceptions" at C:\te
+st\exceptions.pl line 8.
[download]

I invited corrections, none were forthcoming.

My example is a cut-down version of the synopsis, with some things changed

And the things you changed mean that you're not using half of the functionality of the module. You don't use either of the ->throw() or the ->caught() methods. You use Try::Tiny for this functionality, presumably because you couldn't get them to work either.

BTW: E::C throw() and caught(), and Try::Tiny's use of die and catch{} are overlap!.

(Hint: Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.)

Statements of verifiable fact are not "appeals to popularity"; and by definition, cannot be "fallacy".

Do you think Justin Bieber ...

Who?

Further restatements of our respective positions serve no purpose. Let's just accept that you think I'm an idiot; and I think that you are too caught up in trying to suggest that I am, to have bothered to read what I've written and make any real attempt to apply logic to it.

I'm done.