Re: ediff failure if diff doesn't exist

[Richard Stallman]

    > But that wasn't necessary before, so I suspect that call-process has
    > changed to now signal an error.

    Unless there's a really compelling reason for this change I think it
    should be reverted.  A *lot* of code depends on the assumption that
    `call-process' returns a non-zero value if it fails.

What change are you talking about?

    Hmm, some years ago I fixed some calls that incorrectly assumed a
    numerical return value, so these are just a few of the places that
    will probably fail to work correctly if it signals an error instead:

Hold your horses!  You are rushing ahead to solve the problem
using one approach, but I am not sure it is the right approach.