Hi Folks, First of all, I'd like to say "thank you" to Edward Diener and Paul Mensonides for incorporating variadics support into Boost.Preprocessor, which has been on my wishlist for a long time. In fact, I wanted it badly enough that I've been using my own slightly modified version of the library assuming variadics for a while now, and I was interested to see what a cross-platform version would look like (mine was only tested on MSVC). I think the chosen approach of converting variadics to non-variadics is probably superior to the breaking algorithm changes I made in my own version, and I would humbly suggest a few more additions in the same spirit. The reason I chose to use variadics in the first place was to simplify the user interface for the common case of manipulating what I'll call a "variadic sequence," (a series of concatenated tuples), which I wanted to look similar to the following: #define FILTER_PARAMETERS (A, int, 3)\ (B, float, 2.0f)\ (C, const char*, "Howdy!") Of course, without variadics you need either a set of macros for each tuple size, or else double parenthesis around each tuple, which becomes even more burdensome when users are also required to parenthesize inner arguments, leading to gems like this one: #define FILTER_PARAMETERS ((A, (TypeConverter<double, float>), (TypeConverter<double,float>())) My solution admitting the preferred format was to replace most private SEQ_*(X) macros with SEQ_*(...), which also required modifying SEQ_ELEM() and SEQ_HEAD() to return (X) instead of X. However, it occurs to me now that a conversion function to go from variadic to regular sequences would've been easier to implement and backwards compatible; see the attached file, which I've tested in basic cases on MSVC 10 and gcc-4.3.4. The usage would be: #define SEQ (a,b,c)(1,2,3,4) BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SEQ_TO_SEQ( SEQ ) // expands to ((a,b,c))((1,2,3,4)) I'm submitting this because I couldn't find a way to use some combination of TUPLE/VARIADICS and SEQ transformations to do the same thing succinctly, but if I'm just missing something, please let me know. Next, I would suggest having a documented IS_EMPTY(...) function for detecting an empty variadic list. Since is_empty.hpp already exists for single arguments (though undocumented), I would guess the variadic version would look quite similar. My own (MSVC) version is attached. Finally, I would suggest using the preceding IS_EMPTY(...) function to allow VARIADIC_SIZE(...) to return 0, i.e. something along the lines of: # define BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(...) BOOST_PP_IIF( BOOST_PP_IS_EMPTY(__VA_ARGS__), 0, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE_I( __VA_ARGS__ ) ) where BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE_I is the current definition of BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE. Thanks, -Nick Kitten Software Engineer Center for Video Understanding Excellence ObjectVideo, Inc.