On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 12:20:18AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> 
> i can agree if it isn't a macro.
> 

But if it's not a macro then we lose the cpp varargs so you cannot
have a variable number of function arguments.  Even if you work around
this by having an xxx_arg argument type then you have to cast this to
void * so you lose the compile time type checking.

Uwe made some suggestions to reduce the level of indent in the macro
so it is a bit more readable now.  Once I have tested it I will post
an update.

> 
> a better example here would be MALLOC.  i don't think
> it's a good idea either.
> 

To be honest, I don't think it's a great idea but I do believe the
benefits the macro provides outweigh the ugliness within.

-- 
Brett Lymn