Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The most robust thing would perhaps be: > > fflush(dest->file); > ftruncate(fileno(dest->file), 0); > > which leaves the handle intact. An added benefit of that approach is that there is no need for the filename field in the dest structure. Having a separate filename field could be a positive flexibility (it could be used to open a file, store its FILE* in dest->file, while storing the name of another file in dest->filename), but also a negative flexibility (dest->file possibly pointing to a file different from dest->filename is a source of confusion). As I do not think any current caller that wants such a flexibility, or callers in any immediate future, it probably is an overall plus if we do not have to add the dest->filename field. > (I agree with the rest of your review, especially that it would be > easier to read if this were split into separate refactor and > change-behavior steps). > > -Peff
