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

[Drew Adams]

> > 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.
> 
> The test via `file-remote-p' is slower than via `ffap-file-remote-p'.
> In my profiling, it was 0.0007140419 sec vs 0.00001117 sec for one
> call. A factor of 64, yes, but does it really count?

Yes, for my case it does.

It all depends what the test is used for, when, and how often. This is why I've
argued for something flexible - either more than one test function or an ability
to call the test function differently.

For some applications, a slowdown of 3x or 64x makes a big difference. For
others, it is negligible.

I am not arguing that every use of a file-name test to determine the likely
access time needs to consider network mapped drives or files whose names match
`ffap-rfs-regexp' as "remote" (in the sense of slow). I am looking for a test
that allows that determination, but I'm not asking that that definition of
"slow" be applicable to every use.