PerlMonks is a discussion community, not a publishing tool, so it's hard to declare that this kind of discussion is out of line.

It sounds like you accept that the internal design of your LinkStructor script is sub-optimal. (If you'd known the requirements up front, you would have done it differently.) I understand that you don't think it's worthwhile to rewrite the script to improve the design. (Refactoring advocates would argue that you would have been better off making the changes throughout the development process, but that ship has sailed.)

In that context, the VarStructor function is an interesting hack, as a one-off, to keep that script running. If your posts had included a disclaimer that explained this context, I believe the reaction would have been more positive than negative. (Ex, replacing "Alternative to Perl's reset function, with extra features." with "I used this trick to add functionality to an in-house application; rather than rewriting the code using structured design techniques, I had it review its own source code to find variable names.")

But without that caveat, you should expect that other monks will question the applicability of the code you're posting -- it's like showing up at a medical conference to demonstrate your new, patent-pending Hand2HeadStapler -- you've got to expect that people are going to ask why you would want to staple your hand to your head, and suggest that you find another way to approach the problem.