From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: testing for a remote file to include file on a Windows mapped drive Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:57:38 -0700 Message-ID: <004b01c8aaca$2783bd80$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> References: <87bq781bf7.fsf@gmx.de><000a01c8a314$5fff7630$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com><000d01c8a324$97820590$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com><000f01c8a334$b2a40660$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com><000101c8a37f$eeb543d0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <004101c8aa8a$c479e230$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1209563931 4138 80.91.229.12 (30 Apr 2008 13:58:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:58:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , jasonr@gnu.org, michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Stefan Monnier'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 30 15:59:24 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JrCq4-0008AB-G4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:59:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49982 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JrCpM-00084e-UN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:58:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JrCoo-00084E-KF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:57:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JrCol-00083k-Jr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:57:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41984 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JrCok-00083Z-9C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:57:54 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JrCob-0005xb-8Y; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:57:45 -0400 Original-Received: from agmgw1.us.oracle.com (agmgw1.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.212]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id m3UDvbch032421; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:57:38 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by agmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id m3U9XWwA018018; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:57:36 -0600 Original-Received: from inet-141-146-46-1.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3662711911209563855; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:57:35 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.88.165) by bhmail.oracle.com (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:57:35 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AciqlN2d8z+k9012TFOExcrISZXoJgAM56MQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:96221 Archived-At: > > `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.