Is the lcl_LocalFunction naming convention useful?

[Noel Grandin]

On 2012-10-09 07:59, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> 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.)
>
>

While I was hacking on the STL conversion stuff, I noticed that some of 
the lcl_ functions are shared across multiple compilation units.

Personally, I think you should make them all static, and then remove the 
static from the handful of places where they show up as link errors.


Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html