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 7076083
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 28, 20262026-05-28T06:15:20+00:00 2026-05-28T06:15:20+00:00

Is there a better way to overload a macro like this? I need a

  • 0

Is there a better way to “overload” a macro like this? I need a macro that accepts various numbers of parameters.

#define DEBUG_TRACE_1(p1) std::string p[] = {p1}; log _log(__FUNCTION__, p, 1)
#define DEBUG_TRACE_2(p1, p2) std::string p[] = {p1, p2}; log _log(__FUNCTION__, p, 2)
#define DEBUG_TRACE_3(p1, p2, p3) std::string p[] = {p1, p2, p3}; log _log(__FUNCTION__, p, 3)
#define DEBUG_TRACE_4(p1, p2, p3, p4) std::string p[] = {p1, p2, p3, p4}; log _log(__FUNCTION__, p, 4)
#define DEBUG_TRACE_5(p1, p2, p3, p4, p5) std::string p[] = {p1, p2, p3, p4, p5}; log _log(__FUNCTION__, p, 5)

Called like this

DEBUG_TRACE_2("more", "params");
  • 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
    2026-05-28T06:15:20+00:00Added an answer on May 28, 2026 at 6:15 am

    The easiest way to do your specific example would be with a variadic macro:

    #define DEBUG_TRACE(...)                                        \
        do {                                                        \
            std::string p[] = { __VA_ARGS__ };                      \
            log _log(__FUNCTION__, p, (sizeof p) / (sizeof p[0]));  \
        } while (0)
    

    A couple notes:

    1. __VA_ARGS__ is the name for the list of comma-separated arguments supplied to the macro
    2. You can find out how many there are in your case using sizeof since p is a static array
    3. Surrounding your macro code in do..while is often considered good practice because it gives variables (p) a block scope so users can still have a variable with the same name outside the macro, and the while (0) portion nicely accepts a semicolon afterwards without breaking one line if statements

    If you need more flexibility than this, you can use a very neat trick to allow you to explicitly “overload” the macro to behave completely differently with a different number of parameters. However, this makes the code much more convoluted and should only be used if it is absolutely necessary. Since it seems like variadic arguments will do fine for your use case, I’ll just provide a link:
    http://efesx.com/2010/07/17/variadic-macro-to-count-number-of-arguments/

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Is there better way to enumerate all photos on the device than this one?
Is there a better way to code this? def __contains__(self, e): return e in
Is there a better way to write this spec? This works but I don't
Is there a better way to do this for-loop? for i = find(A >
EDIT: Is there a better way of doing this ? TPendingBets = class(TDataModule) private
Is there better way to delete a parameter from a query string in a
Is there a better way to format data uniformly than to store data as
Is there a better way of writing the following for loop? my_list = []
Is there a better way to write the following function? Having the '#' +
Is there a better way to list counter properties for a particular process: $pids

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.