Re: Is the lcl_LocalFunction naming convention useful?

> So I think it's useful: when I read code, it makes understanding a bit
> easier.

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?

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.

--tml