Exactly.
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 4:48:51 PM UTC+2, Rafael Fourquet wrote: > > I think the OP's question is not about the difference between a macro > and a function, but rather about the syntactic way of defining a > macro: if a macro can be seen as a function taking an expression and > returning another one, why can't we just define a macro with the > standard function syntax (i.e. without the macro keyword), and inform > the compiler that we want to use it as a macro only at the call site, > by invoking it prepended with the @ sign. >
