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

[Stefan Monnier]

> `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.


        Stefan