Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:20:23 -0500
Message-Id: <199901061620.LAA12036@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990106113718.8103O-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:37:41 +0200 (IST))
Subject: Re: Function names
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990106113718 DOT 8103O-100000 AT is>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


> I believe the DJGPP practice is to have one underscore on functions
> that an application might want to call, and two underscores for
> functions that aren't supposed to be called directly by application
> code.
> 
> DJ, is that right?  I don't think it's written anywhere, but the
> pattern seems consistent.

Pretty much.  Sometimes, the underscore use is determined by
compatibility with existing software or specifications.

> Hmm, the `__dpmi_...' functions seem to be one exception from this
> rule.

Can't have software without exceptions, can we?  ;-)