I suppose that I could fix this with Exporter if I wrote a proper module, but this isn't meant to be a module, just a snippet.

Point taken. I guess if I was writing this I would use Exporter, and inject the name into the current package. Then I could just use Print_r and be done with it.

I need to use our because I need the variables to maintain their value between calls to the subroutine. If I used my it would be a new and undefined variable each time the subroutine was called and this would break the recursion. To be specific, the $level would be 0 on each recursion.

Ah, fair enough. Still seems like an odd use of our. Mind you, I think that any use of our is odd... I find that the use of my lexicals makes the intent clearer.

Consider a lexical my $depth. You increment $depth and pass it as an extra parameter when you call the routine recursively. You then pick it up with a shift at the top. It will either be undef (called from the client code) or some positive number (current recursed depth).

I'm probably offering you far more advice than you need; you are free to ignore it.