I would use pp-eval-last-sexp, which I bind to C-x C-e. (With C-u it inserts the result at point, like eval-last-sexp.)

You've pointed out some difficulties with this. But try the version of it you get with library PP+ (pp+.el).

It respects user options pp-eval-expression-print-length', pp-eval-expression-print-level', and pp-max-tooltip-size'. These are similar to but separate from the standard options with the same names but without prefix pp-`. So you can have separate values for pretty printing and non-pretty printing.

I also bind M-: to pp-eval-expression, instead of eval-expression.

Both of these commands also let you use M-0 to toggle between using a tooltip for the result and the usual handling (echo area or insertion in current buffer).

The question is really more about printing Lisp sexps (including results of evaluation) than it is about macro expansion, per se. It's just that macro expansion typically results in a large Lisp sexp that can be difficult to work with or read, especially if parts of it are elided (...).

I use pp-eval-last-sexp, which I bind to C-x C-e. (With C-u it inserts the result at point, like eval-last-sexp.)

You've pointed out some difficulties with this. But try the version of it you get with library PP+ (pp+.el).

It respects user options pp-eval-expression-print-length, pp-eval-expression-print-level, and pp-max-tooltip-size. The first two are similar to but separate from the standard options with the same names but without prefix pp-. So you can have separate values for pretty printing and non-pretty printing.

I also bind M-: to pp-eval-expression, instead of eval-expression.

Both of these commands also let you use M-0 to toggle between using a tooltip for the result (when it is no larger than pp-max-tooltip-size) and the usual handling (echo area or insertion in current buffer).

(The commands also respect option eval-expression-debug-on-error.)