> > I'm not sure I see the value of taking such perversity into account.
> >
>
> We're loosing how we got to this place in the conversation. You
> previously said:

Actually, I hadn't lost my place in the conversation.

> I'm saying that the error is in some ways a "feature" because it
> prevents you from silently getting the wrong behavior.
>
> Either mechanism requires that a conforming compiler define the needed
> macro(s). The function-like syntax lets you know when you are using a
> that is not supported by your compiler (which can then be worked around,
> if needed by something like a command-line macro definition).

Well, we just disagree. I see the potential for this error, and the effort to avoid it, as a pure disadvantage. And that's why I prefer the identifier-only syntax.

Clark