Re: testing for a remote file to include file on a Windows mappeddrive

[Richard Stallman]

    > `file-local-name' might not be a good name.
    > The operation `unhandled-file-name-directory' returns a directory that
    > isn't magic.  But remote names are not the only magic names, so
    > "local" isn't necessarily the right way to describe the relationship
    > between that directory and the argument.

    The issue is not whether the returned file name is magic or not, but
    whether it can be passed as-is to a subprocess.

I thought the two criteria were equivalent.  What am I missing?

    I don't understand.  unhandled-file-name-directory is used to get
    a directory that can be used as cwd for subprocesses.  And the new
    operation is meant to be used to get a filename that can be passed
    to subprocesses.  So AFAICT they share everything and should use the
    same name.

I don't understand.  Are you saying we only need one operation?
Or that the two operations should have similar names?

I agree they should have similar names.  What I'm suggesting
is that names that refer to `nonmagic' might be clearer
than names based on `unhandled'.