Re: patch 2.5.4 ISO C90 compliance patch

[Paul Eggert]

"Paul Edwards" <address@hidden> writes:

> Since the user has already specified the filename for
> the reject file, that should be used directly rather than
> going via a temporary file.

The problem with that approach is that the reject file may
contain incomplete output if 'patch' exits due to an error.
The 'rename' approach was taken to avoid this.

> My patch is to make the code C90 compliant.  People who
> want a C90 compliant patch can search for it in bug-gnu-utils,
> regardless of whether it is actually accepted into the baseline.

That will work only for patch 2.5.4; it won't work for future
versions of 'patch'.  In contrast, the method I suggested will
work for all 'patch' versions, and will also work for lots and
lots of other programs.