Consider renaming hack classes namespace from "_" to "h-"

[renatodeleao]

Reasons:

1. Consistency with other namespaces
2. _ looks like lodash
3. _ looks an element that is missing its block (BEM)
4. _ looks like fake private vars in javascript

Cons:

1. h- is not immediately recognisable, but we may argue that non of the others is

Alternatives:

• hk- but i looks like hong kong
• hack- is not that long and is explicit, so bonus points for clarity, but minus on consistency.

[tomasmcm]

@renatodeleao why can't they be utilities?

[renatodeleao]

Well they can but, but usually they don't fall in the same category.

• Hacks are usually a signal of bad css or temporary workaround, not permanent as utilties

• First they aren't single declaration by nature. 99% of utilities are (or should be).

• The fact that they look different/ugly _my-hack-class triggers the spider of other developers "🤔 something's not right here"

• At the moment the only hack that we have is that workaround for min-height flex bug in Internet Explorer, and it could be an utility but then people would question its usage "the why it's there"

  <!-- this is applying a min-heigh to c-somecompnent, no questions asked -->
  <div class="c-somecomponent u-flex-min-height">
    <div class="c-hero">
   
  <!-- this is applying min-height to c-somecomponent, 🤔 but why the ugly duck name? -->
  <div class="c-somecomponent _flex-min-height">
    <div class="c-hero">

• The guru Roberts, also says to one off hacks related to component, but i don't buy it:

// Roberts example
@media screen and (max-width: 30em) {

  /**
   * We need to force the footer to be a fixed height on smaller screens.
   */
  ._c-footer-mobile {
    height: 80px;
  }

}

// me
@media screen and (max-width: 30em) {

  /**
   * Well if We need to force the footer, that's part of the component so
   */
  .c-footer {
    height: 80px;
  }
}

This is more like a meta question, but thanks for your interest!