http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1219657


in reply to Re^2: RFC: Inline::Blocks or inline as a keyword?
in thread RFC: Inline::Blocks or inline as a keyword?

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 { ...; } }

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Inline::Blocks or inline as a keyword?
by shmem (Chancellor) on Aug 01, 2018 at 22:58 UTC
    (...) 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.

    perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'