On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:59:47AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist <[email protected]> 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.)
I think the intention is that when such a function is called, the lcl_ prefix helps you to realize it's a local function, not a method in the current class or one of its parents. (Of course there are example of abuse even of this rule, e.g. in writerfilter there are methods having an lcl_foo name. ;-) ) So I think it's useful: when I read code, it makes understanding a bit easier. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
