Re: Possible variadic macro bug

[seebs at plethora dot net (Peter Seebach)]

In message <20011109225516.A22521@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>, Neil Booth writes:
>> >> While I'm at it, the documentation for ISO's __VA_ARGS__ in extend.texi
>> >> is misleading.  While it's true that, given
>> >> 	#define debug(format, ...) fprintf (stderr, format, __VA_ARGS__)
>> >> you can't omit the comma, you *could* write
>> >> 	#define debug(format ...) fprintf(stderr, format __VA_ARGS__)
>> >> in C99, and then the comma is optional.  (See 6.10.3, paragraph 10, for
>> >> the description.)
>> 
>> >Have you tried it?
>> 
>> I'm just saying it's correct ISO C99.  I haven't tried it, because I don't
>> have an ISO C99 compiler.  :)  It would be good for the docs to show how
>> to do this using the C99 varargs macro stuff, though; as is, it sounds like
>> they're saying you *can't* do that in the ISO C stuff.

>It's not correct C99 - C99 requires that arguments be comma separated,
>including the "...".

Oops!  Rereading this, I see what you're saying.  I noticed the existance of
the (...) form, and didn't think this through correctly.  Sorry!  Hmm.  I'm
still convinced we *meant* to make this possible, though.  Ugh.

-s