RE: testing for a remote file to include file on a Windows mappeddrive

[Drew Adams]

> file-remote-p returns information about the *file name*, and not
> necessarily about the file: "Can the file name be used literally on the
> local host?" I believe this meaning shall be kept, for example, it is
> needed to determine whether a file name must be trimmed when used as
> argument of process-file and alike.
>
> The new function you are looking for is file-mounted-p or so.

In my case, and I think in many (most?) cases where `file-remote-p' is used
today, it is, as you say, not necessary to know much about an actual file;
it is enough to know that a given file name is *likely* to represent a
remote file.

Note that it is possible that a local file have a name that matches any of
the various "remote-file" syntaxes. The syntax is not proof that a file is
remote.

In my case, I am not really looking for `file-mounted-p'. Again, I don't
really care if such and such a file is really local or remote or on a
mounted (mapped) drive or directory. I only want to know if it is *likely*
that it is. That means that I don't need a (possibly more costly) function
to check things out remotely to determine whether such a remote/mounted file
exists.