> "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> True enough, So, instead of using mktemp at all, why not do something >> like append '.part' to the image name? I think that is a little more >> clear to the end user if they find some hanging around after a >> scanimage crash or something. > > Absolutely, especially if this all happens in the working directory.
It has to be in the same directory like the target files or rename() could fail as I understand it. But of course it's not really the current working directory because output filespec can include a path, relative or absolute. My intention for using mktemp() was to make sure that one scanimage process does in any case rename only it's own file, even if a concurrent scanimage process (maybe handling a different device) uses the same output file name. Anyway I'll remove mktemp() tomorrow. Regards, Simon
