On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 08:16:01 -0800, H. S. Teoh wrote: > Rather, it's *conventionally* taken to mean "unused". The language > actually does not treat it in any special way apart from "normal" > identifiers. It's perfectly valid (though probably not recommended!) to > declare functions or variables with the name "_" and use them.
I once, in my callow days, wrote a unittest with variables named _, __, ___, etc. It did not pass code review, but it did amuse.
