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

[Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> I know it started as a file-name-handler-only thingy, but its new
> docstring and this discussion shows that it goes further than that.

Please don't let us decide because of the docstring. It was changed not
so long ago, without a corresponding implementation, as Eli has
shown. So it represents your intentions for file-remote-p - which I do
respect, but which I don't share (yet).

>> That's why I am not creative enough to see how to implement your
>> interpretation of that function.
>
> Maybe you're thinking of "how can I implement it in Tramp" whereas the
> Tramp-side of that function is already implemented and this thread is
> not only concerned about its behavior for non-file-name-handled files.

I wouldn't have so much problems with your proposal if file-remote-p
would be used just for the decision "Is the access fast or slow". But
that's not the only use case for file-remote-p. This function is used
also in cases for the decision "Do I need special handling for accessing
this file". Most cases, this question doesn't arise, because the file
name handler functions decide it silently. But there are cases, those
functions are not sufficient.

>         Stefan

Best regards, Michael.