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.
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