We have plenty of very ugly macros anyway. See fastgetattr(), HeapKeyTest(), HeapTupleSatisfies(), HeapTupleHeaderSetXmax and friends, Assert() and friends.
I don't think Assert() is too bad, but I agree some of the others are a bit ugly. In some places where we would like to use a macro but don't want to doubly-evaluate macro arguments, we define the function with "static inline" in a header file when using GCC, and include a normal function definition in a source file otherwise (see list_length() in pg_list.h / list.c for example). Needless to say, this is even uglier :)
An alternative would be to define inline functions in headers using "static __inline". When using GCC (or other compilers that implement sane "static inline" semantics per C99, such as icc), __inline would expand to "inline"; otherwise it would expand to the empty string. Compilers that don't implement "static inline" would include multiple copies of the function definition, which would bloat the object code (if a compiler doesn't implement "static", it is a good bet that it also doesn't implement the unit-at-a-time analysis required to elide unused static function definitions). So I'm not really sure that this is a win overall.
-Neil
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
