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

[Stefan Monnier]

>> `file-local-name' might not be a good name.
>> The operation `unhandled-file-name-directory' returns a directory that
>> isn't magic.  But remote names are not the only magic names, so
>> "local" isn't necessarily the right way to describe the relationship
>> between that directory and the argument.

>     The issue is not whether the returned file name is magic or not, but
>     whether it can be passed as-is to a subprocess.

> I thought the two criteria were equivalent.  What am I missing?

/tmp/foo.gz is magic and can be passed as is to a subprocess.

>     I don't understand.  unhandled-file-name-directory is used to get
>     a directory that can be used as cwd for subprocesses.  And the new
>     operation is meant to be used to get a filename that can be passed
>     to subprocesses.  So AFAICT they share everything and should use the
>     same name.

> I don't understand.  Are you saying we only need one operation?
> Or that the two operations should have similar names?

> I agree they should have similar names.  What I'm suggesting
> is that names that refer to `nonmagic' might be clearer
> than names based on `unhandled'.

The "magic" file names are registered via file-name-handler-alis, not
via file-name-magic-alist, so "unhandled" makes at least as much sense,
doesn't it?


        Stefan