Reusing a PV is leading to common mistakes

[atoomic]

This is probably not a recommended usage, but this seems what many users will do when start using the module: recycling PVs to use guard....
this could lead to unexpected behaviors... we should probably either try to warn or fix the issue

#!perl

use strict;
use warnings;

use File::Path     qw(make_path);  
use File::pushd;

use Cwd;

use Test::More;

my $root = getcwd;

make_path( $root . "/a/b/c" );
ok -d $root . "/a/b/c";

my $in_dir = pushd( "a" );
is getcwd, "$root/a", "we are in 'a'";

# undef($in_dir) or use another PV 'my $in_dir2'
$in_dir = pushd( "$root/a/b" );
is getcwd, "$root/a/b", "we are in 'a/b'";

done_testing;

output:

╰─> perl test.pl
ok 1
ok 2 - we are in 'a'
not ok 3 - we are in 'a/b'
#   Failed test 'we are in 'a/b''
#   at test.pl line 23.
#          got: '/Users/xxxx/workspace'
#     expected: '/Users/xxxx/workspace/a/b'
1..3
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 3.

We can fix by either:

• forcing undef on the SV: undef($in_dir)
• using another scope
• using another PV...

[xdg]

Seems like a doc-fix is what's needed. If users don't understand object destruction semantics, there's not much I think we should be doing to avoid letting them shoot themselves in the foot.

[atoomic]

doc-fix seems fair IMO, we should probably mention it in a Common Mistakes or Restrictions section, I can work something like this.

Another issue would be to use two objects in the same scope :-)