Re: Simple indentation. Does it need improvement?

Module names should be capitalized, unless it's a pragma
A new-method should be reserved for constructors
Related to point 2), complementary methods should be named complementary (like start/end, open/close)

holli

You can lead your users to water, but alas, you cannot drown them.

Comment on Re: Simple indentation. Does it need improvement? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Simple indentation. Does it need improvement? by choroba (Cardinal) on Dec 12, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
When I was reading the OP, the first thought I had was "POD". Why not to use the same names here? Indent::over, Indent::back, and maybe even more if needed? ($q=q:Sq=~/;[c](.)(.)/;chr(-\|\|-\|5+lengthSq)`"S\|oS2"`map{chr \|+ord }map{substrSq`S_+\|`\|}3E\|-\|`7**2-3:)=~y+S\|`+$1,++print+eval$q,q,a, [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Simple indentation. Does it need improvement? by siberia-man (Friar) on Dec 12, 2017 at 22:51 UTC
Thank you for your comments! Definitely I was in stuck inventing the name for opening the new indentation. I knew that "new" was reserved for constructor but couldn't give the proper name for this method. Thanks choroba as well. He gave me hint regarding Indent::over/Indent::back pair. Those are the best. Talking about lower case of the module name, I thought to use the module like a pragma: "use indent" to turn on new indentation and "no indent" to revert to previous indent level. I fastly recognized that there no ways for that and have left all my attempts in this direction. And the module name left without changes. I am going to take into account all the feedbacks by holli and choroba. What is the best way -- a) update the OP with the proper remarks or b) reply with new updated post?	[reply]