So you are declaring all the millions of line of pre-5.8 Perl that used signals, and all the billions of lines of C that still use "unsafe" signal handling, "definitely not wise.

Which according to your logic means that the authors of Perl::Unsafe::Signals, along with those p5pers that left the PERL_SIGNALS=unsafe workaround in place should be condemned for their actions?

Or maybe there is another reason for your continued stance.

So you are declaring all the millions of line of pre-5.8 Perl that used signals [...] not wise

No. Where did you get the idea that it was possible to turn off safe signals pre 5.8? I can't speak as to how wise it is to do something impossible.

So you are declaring [...] all the billions of lines of C that still use "unsafe" signal handling, "definitely not wise.

No. What makes you say that all C code uses unsafe signal handling? The Perl library pre 5.8 wasn't signal-safe, but that doesn't mean that C code in general can't be made signal-safe. Perl 5.8(.?) is an example of such a feat being accomplished.