RE: testing for a remote file to include file on a Windows mapped drive

[Drew Adams]

> > `file-remote-p' is also slower than it could be, at least for some
> > file names.  For file names that `ffap-file-remote-p' determines are
> > remote, calling it is faster - Michael found it to be about 70 times
> > faster than `file-remote-p'. I suggested incorporating the ffap test
> > into `file-remote-p'.
> 
> I won't worry about the performance of file-remote-p until someone can
> show me a real case where it matters.  This is also true of 
> pretty much anything else than `file-remote-p'.  It's called "don't do 
> premature optimizations" and there's a good reason for it: you need the 
> concrete case in order to know for what to optimize.

`file-remote-p' already tests using some regexps - why not add the ffap
regexp(s)? You already agreed to that, in fact:

 >> That's what ffap-rfs-regexp tries to do.  And yes, I think it 
 >> should be added to file-remote-p.

That's all I was saying there.

I offered to describe my use case, but it won't prove anything special in this
regard. Suffice it to say that I would like the test to be about as quick as
`ffap-rfs-regexp' for the regexps that `ffap-rfs-regexp' handles.