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

[Drew Adams]

> >> >> That's what ffap-rfs-regexp tries to do.  And yes, I think it 
> >> >> should be added to file-remote-p.
> >> > It sounds like we violently agree.
> >> 
> >> Then send a patch,
> 
> > It's not clear to me what should be in the patch. I was 
> > saying that we seem to agree that file-remote-p should
> > deal with more than it does now. I would like it
> > to handle the stuff that is in the code I sent, though it 
> > need not do it the same way. I think it makes sense to add
> > both ffap regexps, before the current file-remote-p code.
> 
> > I guess I'm saying that I think we generally agree, but 
> > it's not clear to me what you want in the patch.
> 
> ffap-rfs-regexp is a good first step.  But try something, and 
> I'll tell you what I like and what I don't.

I don't think so. It's not clear from the discussion (Eli & Michael vs you) that
any consensus has been reached about what should be in `file-remote-p' (vs
elsewhere). And you're not interested in adding the NET USE part to
`file-remote-p' in the meantime.

I've expressed a need for something (`file-remote-p' or something else; I don't
care) that quickly distinguishes, based on the file name and only local info,
whether the file named is likely to be slow to access or fast.

I'll let it go at that. I hope you will eventually come to agreement on where to
do that, and I hope that someone with knowledge of how to do that does it.