Suggestion: Make function names in examples obviously example names

[nkolban]

While reading the examples supplied in the ESP-IDF, I found them confusing for a very simple reason (to me). Put yourself in the mind of someone studying the examples ... they are here because the APIs that they are about to use in their projects are new to them. Take for example the "i2c" samples ... all the ESP-IDF APIs exposed by the ESP-IDF for "i2c" all begin with the prefix "i2c_xxx" ... that makes perfect naming sense.

Now let us look in the sample ... the local functions that are defined ... merely as samples ... also begin with "i2c_xxx" and this provides a small degree of confusion ... if we look at the bottom of the sample, we see:

void app_main()
{
    print_mux = xSemaphoreCreateMutex();
    i2c_slave_init();
    i2c_master_init();

Just from reading this, it isn't obvious whether i2c_slave_init() and i2c_master_init() are local sample functions or ESP-IDF exposed functions ... without having to read through the whole code.

However, if we changed the sample code to read:

void app_main()
{
    print_mux = xSemaphoreCreateMutex();
    sample_i2c_slave_init();
    sample_i2c_master_init();

It might be much more obvious. This pattern appears in a number of samples ... so I am not picking on just the I2C sample.

Again, this issue is a suggestion merely for y'alls consideration.