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

[Michael Albinus]

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

>> > 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.

Oops, maybe there is a misunderstanding? (Forgive me my bad English)
I meant the time a call of `file-remote-p' needs to run. I don't
comment *why* you need such a test.

Even if you have a function which calls 100x `file-remote-p', this would
last 0.07140419 sec only. Does it really count?

Best regards, Michael.