Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 747041
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T14:09:36+00:00 2026-05-14T14:09:36+00:00

For example: #define FOO(x) (printf(x)) and #define FOO(x) {printf(x)} It seems that both are

  • 0

For example:

#define FOO(x)     (printf(x))

and

#define FOO(x)     {printf(x)}

It seems that both are viable for preprocessing, but which is better?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T14:09:36+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 2:09 pm

    If you’re treating the macro as an expression, use the () form.

    If you’re treating it as a command (and never as an expression) then use the {} form. Or rather, use the do{}while(0) form as that has fewer substitution hazards when used near keywords like if:

    #define FOO(x) do {    \
        printf(x);         \
    } while(0)
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Some example code to start the question: #define FOO_COUNT 5 static const char *foo[]
Can you define a macro that accesses a normal variable, but in a read-only
For example: define.cs #define FOO form1.cs #if FOO MessageBox.Show(foo is set!); #else MessageBox.Show(foo is
In an example project, I defined the macro #define FOO(x, y) x + y
If I have the following: /* * example.h */ #ifndef EXAMPLE #define EXAMPLE #include
How do I use macros in Perl, like I do in C? Example: #define
I have this example FactoryGirl.define do @site = FactoryGirl.create(:my_site) factory :user do email {
if for example i have : #define PRINT(x) fprintf(stderr, x); and in code i
In Concrete Abstractions , there is this example of recursion: (define subtract-the-first (lambda (n)
FactoryGirl.define do sequence :email do |n| user#{n}@example.com end factory :user do email {FactoryGirl.generate :email}

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.