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.
It's a nice general facility to have in the tree. 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. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
