Is the lcl_LocalFunction naming convention useful?

[Tor Lillqvist]

Where did this lcl_ convention come from? The lcl_ prefix has no
meaning to a compiler or linker. If the intent is to make such
functions file-local, why not use the static keyword, or an anonymous
namespace instead, so that they actually *are* local also to the
tool-chain? (You can still keep the lcl_ prefix if you love it.)

Sure, in the normal case on normal platforms, it doesn't hurt that
such symbols are nominally global because other mechanisms
(visibility, DLL export) attempt to make sure they aren't in fact
visible outside the DSO/DLL they end up in anyway. But still.

(I am complaining because when attempting to link shitloads of LO code
into one executable / shared library, whicih I am experimenting with
for Android and which is necessary for iOS, such functions that have
identical mangled names, from separate modules, *will* clash. Sure,
it's trivial for me to then change the functions into static, but a
bit tedious.)

--tml