But I still don't see why this will be a problem in *all* cases, or in most likelihood the case in question in particular - a single file program which is unlikely to be used in a shared environment: there is no opportunity for any unwanted access to the filehandles.
It should also be borne in mind that whilst the bareword filehandle might be globally accessible, the symbols are package qualified as demonstrated by the following:
use strict;
use warnings;
+
open FOO, ">x";
+
package bar;
+
close FOO or warn "$!\n";;
+
package main;
+
print FOO "Gshshsh";
It would therefore be reasonable to assume the risk of unintentional access is fairly limited, leaving only a notional risk of intentional misuse of the filehandle by some malicious code - and, well, if you are running untrusted code in a manner that would allow that to happen then you have far worse problems than messing with a programs file handles would create.
As I say, lexical filehandles have their uses when it would be tricky or impossible to use bareword filehandles. But I just don't go with the absolutism.
/J\ | 