Eric Niebler actually asked this on StackOverflow a few years ago:
https://stackoverflow.com/q/48045470/2069064

The accepted answer there is:

#define PP_THIRD_ARG(a,b,c,...) c#define VA_OPT_SUPPORTED_I(...)
PP_THIRD_ARG(__VA_OPT__(,),true,false,)#define VA_OPT_SUPPORTED
VA_OPT_SUPPORTED_I(?)

Barry

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:47 PM Richard Smith via SG10 <
sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Uh-oh. Using
>
> #ifdef __VA_OPT__
>
> as a feature test system is problematic because we previously said that
> __VA_OPT__ is ill-formed if it appears anywhere other than in a #define for
> a variadic macro. Several existing C++20 implementations reject that #ifdef.
>
> Perhaps we don't need a feature-test macro, though:
>
> #define HAS_VA_OPT_IMPL___VA_OPT__(...) 0
> #define HAS_VA_OPT_IMPL_YES 1
> #define HAS_VA_OPT_IMPL(A, ...) HAS_VA_OPT_IMPL_ ## __VA_OPT__(YES)
> #define HAS_VA_OPT HAS_VA_OPT_IMPL(HAS_VA_OPT_IMPL_, YES)
>
> #if HAS_VA_OPT
> ...
> #else
> ...
> #endif
>
> ... seems to work out OK.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:28 AM Ben Craig <ben.craig_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Liaison <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Thomas
>> Köppe via Liaison
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 25, 2021 5:21 PM
>> *To:* Richard Smith <richardsmith_at_[hidden]>
>> *Cc:* Thomas Köppe <tkoeppe_at_[hidden]>; liaison_at_[hidden];
>> sg10_at_[hidden]
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] Feature test macro for
>> P0306 (__VA_OPT__)
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposed solution seems elegant to me. If you say that's
>> implementable, I'd be in favour of that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have very regrettably not sent an updated paper to WG14 for this
>> feature, it's one of the things on my list. I shall prioritize getting it
>> done!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:02, Richard Smith <richardsmith_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [+WG14 liaison list]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:59 PM Richard Smith <richardsmith_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> SD-FeatureTest doesn't mention P0306. I think a feature test macro would
>> be useful here, to allow projects to incrementally adopt the new
>> functionality. Example:
>>
>>
>>
>> #if __cpp_va_opt
>>
>> #define FOO(a, ...) f(a __VA_OPT__(,) __VA_ARGS__)
>>
>> #elif __GNUC__
>>
>> #define FOO(a, ...) f(a , ## __VA_ARGS__)
>>
>> #else
>>
>> // Hopefully we get the MSVC implicit comma deletion behavior.
>>
>> #define FOO(a, ...) f(a , __VA_ARGS__)
>>
>> #endif
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that the __GNUC__ extension is enabled by default, even in
>> conforming modes, in GCC, Clang, and ICC. However, after the adoption of
>> P0306, it's no longer a conforming extension, so presumably it will be
>> phased out at some point, and uses of the feature-test macro, such as in
>> the above example, are going to become necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding the name of the macro: this functionality is shared with C, and
>> as such, a __cpp_* name is probably not ideal. However, there's another
>> interesting option: we could use
>>
>>
>>
>> #ifdef __VA_OPT__
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> as the feature test mechanism. This doesn't appear to conflict with
>> anything else, and is in line with our feature test mechanism for
>> __has_cpp_attribute and __has_include.
>>
>>
>>
>> So that's my suggestion: #ifdef/#ifndef/defined should treat `__VA_OPT__`
>> as if it were the name of a defined macro.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> --
> SG10 mailing list
> SG10_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
>