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
