On 2018-09-21 18:00:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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 <andres@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