Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2018-09-22 09:15:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 8:51 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> I think there's some argument to be made about the "mental" complexity >>> of the macros - if we went for them, we'd certainly need to add some >>> docs about how they work. One argument for having PP_NARGS (renamed) is >>> that it doesn't seem useful just here, but in a few other cases as well.
If you want to rename it, then to what? VA_ARGS_NARGS, perhaps? >> It's a nice general facility to have in the tree. Yeah, that's a fair point. >> It seems to compile >> OK on clang, gcc, MSVC (I added this thread as CF entry 20/1798 as a >> lazy way to see if AppVeyor would build it OK, and it worked fine >> until conflicting commits landed). I wonder if xlc, icc, aCC and Sun >> Studio can grok it. > I think unless $compiler doesn't correctly implement vararg macros, it > really should just work. Well, we'd find out pretty quickly if we try to use it here. regards, tom lane