> It's not like a more descriptive name would help in that example, the type name and function name already give sufficient context for it to be perfectly clear

> It's not like a more descriptive name would help in that example, the type name and function name already give sufficient context for it to be perfectly clear what the parameter is for, and it's not like parameter names have any semantic significance in C. I agree, and I’ve been thinking about this today. There is also a minimalistic quality to this style, the _ pointer is more prominent simply by not having a real name. I like it!