On 2018-09-21 18:00:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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?
I like your suggestion. I mainly didn't like the PP_ prefix. > >> 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. You earlier were talking about tackling this - do you still want to? I can otherwise, but it'll not be today, but likely tomorrow. Greetings, Andres Freund