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

[Michael Albinus]

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

> `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.

Please don't forget that `file-remote-p' is based on file name
handlers. If you want to add `ffap-rfs-regexp', there shall be a
corresponding implementation of such a handler.

Everything else would contradict the clear design, and it would
increase the maintenance burden.

> 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.

The test via `file-remote-p' is slower than via `ffap-file-remote-p'.
In my profiling, it was 0.0007140419 sec vs 0.00001117 sec for one
call. A factor of 64, yes, but does it really count?