Is the lcl_LocalFunction naming convention useful?

[Miklos Vajna]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:29:45AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist <tml at iki.fi> wrote:
> But how is the fact that you see that some lcl_Function is "local"
> make it easier to understand what the function does? Isn't it only
> unnecessary visual fluff?

Example: if it's lcl_Foo(), I just search in the local file. If it's a
method, I use ctags to look up the function definition.

> Anyway, my main point was not that we should drop the "lcl_" prefix,
> but that we should make these functions *actually* local, also for the
> tool-chain, i.e. either static or in anonymous namespaces.

Agreed, if Lubos' compiler plugin could check for lcl_ functions that
are not static / in an anon namespace, that would be great, I guess. :-)