Re: file-relative-name and remote files

[Lars Hansen]

> Also, this burden is on every file handler.
> Note that every operation needs to do the additional "did it match at
> the beginning" check!
>
> The alternative would be to change expand-file-name as I suggested:
> if there was no handler, do your thing and then look if there is
> another handler to invoke, and if so, then invoke it.
>
> Apart from the implementation considerations, there is also the
> conceptual level: IMHO, the ..-leads-to-different-handler problem is a
> general problem that does not depend on any specific handler.  So this
> general problem should be handled in the general code, rather than
> requiring every handler to deal with this case.
>  
Whatever solution is chosen, I think it would be a good idea with some 
general code rather than leaving it to every handler to implement a 
solution.

To me it sounds as a good solution to have expand-file-name, after the 
expansion, check for a handler and call it if one is found, in addition 
to doing it before the expansion. But I think this should be done only 
if we find that it is the correct thin to do from a general point of 
view - not just to solve a specific problem in an easy way. But maybe it 
is the rigth thing. What do people think?