Re: Optional argument for `file-local-copy'

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> Thanks for getting us back on track.  Yes, I agree with adding such
>> a functionality.  But I have the impression that it's not enough: if the
>> caller doesn't know whether the file is indeed being cached or not, then
>> it doesn't know whether to delete it or not once it's done using it.
> The caller does not need to know whether a file is cached.  File name
> handlers implementation shall keep *always* the information about a
> local copy of a remote file (the local name, the result of
> file-attributes of the remote file).

That means that the file-local-copy handlers *always* have to obey
REUSE-IF-ALREADY-EXISTS, rather only doing so if they use a cache.

> A problem might be to remove local copies when they are not
> used anymore.

That's inherent in the use of a cache, I'm not too worried about that,
tho of course, we'll have to make it work well (erasing at the end of
the session is problematic since the session might not end cleanly, so
we'll probably want to instead make the cache survive for longer, and
share it across sessions).


        Stefan