Re^3: RFC: Inline::Blocks or inline as a keyword?

[tobyink]

Indenting some sub definitions is useful for applying a lexical pragma like no warnings qw(redefine) but then again pragmata wouldn't survive inlining. (Though you could set pragma inside the sub.) I do also use them for grouping code occasionally, but the biggest reason to support indented sub definitions is:

package Foo {
   sub bar {
      ...;
   }
}

[shmem]

(...) but the biggest reason to support indented sub definitions is:

Now that's convincing. Well erm... to do things right I'd need to check also what the current package is, for package NAME BLOCK definitions. Then, there could be a inline subroutine(LIST) or even inline subroutine LIST calling an inlineable subroutine imported from elsewhere. I could require B::Deparse and do a coderef2text in that case. Looks like the CAVEATS section needs to be much longer in the pod... or much more work to be done.

But then, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm not at all sure if this package is worth the effort.