trick or new method to expend PPNARG macro

Question

I asked a question: c++ macro expansion(__VA_ARGS__ item name and value)

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>

#define PP_NARG(...)    PP_NARG_(__VA_ARGS__,PP_RSEQ_N())
#define PP_NARG_(...)   PP_ARG_N(__VA_ARGS__)

#define PP_ARG_N( \
        _1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, _7, _8, _9,_10,  \
        _11,_12,_13,_14,_15,_16,_17,_18,_19,_20, \
        _21,_22,_23,_24,_25,_26,_27,_28,_29,_30, \
        _31,_32,_33,_34,_35,_36,_37,_38,_39,_40, \
        _41,_42,_43,_44,_45,_46,_47,_48,_49,_50, \
        _51,_52,_53,_54,_55,_56,_57,_58,_59,_60, \
        _61,_62,_63,N,...) N

#define PP_RSEQ_N() \
        63,62,61,60,                   \
        59,58,57,56,55,54,53,52,51,50, \
        49,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40, \
        39,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30, \
        29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20, \
        19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10, \
        9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0
        
        
/* need extra level to force extra eval */
#define Paste(a,b) a ## b
#define XPASTE(a,b) Paste(a,b)


/* APPLYXn variadic X-Macro by M Joshua Ryan      */
/* Free for all uses. Don't be a jerk.            */
/* I got bored after typing 15 of these.          */
/* You could keep going upto 64 (PPNARG's limit). */
#define APPLYX1(a)           X(a)
#define APPLYX2(a,b)         X(a), X(b)
#define APPLYX3(a,b,c)       X(a), X(b), X(c)
#define APPLYX4(a,b,c,d)     X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d)
#define APPLYX5(a,b,c,d,e)   X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e)
#define APPLYX6(a,b,c,d,e,f) X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f)
#define APPLYX7(a,b,c,d,e,f,g) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g)
#define APPLYX8(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h)
#define APPLYX9(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i)
#define APPLYX10(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i), X(j)
#define APPLYX11(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i), X(j), X(k)
#define APPLYX12(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i), X(j), X(k), X(l)
#define APPLYX13(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i), X(j), X(k), X(l), X(m)
#define APPLYX14(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i), X(j), X(k), X(l), X(m), X(n)
#define APPLYX15(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o) \
    X(a), X(b), X(c), X(d), X(e), X(f), X(g), X(h), X(i), X(j), X(k), X(l), X(m), X(n), X(o)
#define APPLYX_(M, ...) M(__VA_ARGS__)
#define APPLYXn(...) APPLYX_(XPASTE(APPLYX, PP_NARG(__VA_ARGS__)), __VA_ARGS__)


#define X(a) std::make_pair(#a, a)

#define FAKE_MACRO(...) fake_fold(APPLYXn(__VA_ARGS__))    


template <typename ... Pairs>
void fake_fold(const Pairs&... ps)
{
    ((std::cout << ps.first << ": " << ps.second << std::endl), ...);
}

int main()
{
  int var1 = 42;
  std::string var2 = "toto";
  double var3 = 5.1;
  FAKE_MACRO(var1, var2, var3);
}

demo

Macro arguments are "unpacked":

In the traditional preprocessor, if a macro forwards one of its arguments to another dependent macro then the argument doesn't get "unpacked" when it's inserted. Usually this optimization goes unnoticed, but it can lead to unusual behavior:

// Create a string out of the first argument, and the rest of the arguments.
#define TWO_STRINGS( first, ... ) #first, #__VA_ARGS__
#define A( ... ) TWO_STRINGS(__VA_ARGS__)
const char* c[2] = { A(1, 2) };

// Conforming preprocessor results:
// const char c[2] = { "1", "2" };

// Traditional preprocessor results, all arguments are in the first string:
// const char c[2] = { "1, 2", };

Question: If I use some latest macro features like macro unpacked or VA_OPT in C++20. Can I simplify the traditional implement without using a complex predefined like PP_ARG_N and support any number of parameters really?

emm, something like this:

#define NEW_IMPL(x1, ...)   std::make_pair(#x1, &x1), NEW_IMPL(__VA_ARGS__)  //  head, rest of the arguments, like variadic templates
NEW_IMPL(a, b, c, d, e);

score 0 · Answer 1 · answered Dec 28 '20 at 14:26

Recursive MACRO is not possible:

If the name of the macro being replaced is found during this scan of the replacement list (not including the rest of the source file’s preprocessing tokens), it is not replaced. Furthermore, if any nested replacements encounter the name of the macro being replaced, it is not replaced. These nonreplaced macro name preprocessing tokens are no longer available for further replacement even if they are later (re)examined in contexts in which that macro name preprocessing token would otherwise have been replaced.

but there are workaround to have several evaluations to mimic recursive call up to some limit.

#define EMPTY(...)
#define DEFER(...) __VA_ARGS__ EMPTY()

#define EVAL(...)  EVAL1(EVAL1(EVAL1(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL1(...) EVAL2(EVAL2(EVAL2(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL2(...) EVAL3(EVAL3(EVAL3(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL3(...) EVAL4(EVAL4(EVAL4(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL4(...) EVAL5(EVAL5(EVAL5(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL5(...) __VA_ARGS__

#define FOR_EACH_ID() FOR_EACH
#define FOR_EACH(F, X, ...) F(X) __VA_OPT__(, DEFER(FOR_EACH_ID)()(F, __VA_ARGS__))

#define F(X) std::make_pair(#X, X)
#define NEW_IMPL(...) EVAL(FOR_EACH(F, __VA_ARGS__))

Demo

trick or new method to expend PPNARG macro

1 Answers1