Re: `eshell-under-cygwin-p' etc. inappropriate?

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, John Wiegley wrote:

> >>>>> On Tue Aug  6, Eli writes:
> 
> > On 7 Aug 2002, John Paul Wallington wrote:
> >> Maybe `eshell-under-cygwin-p' should be called something else?
> 
> > What difference in behavior is that test supposed to handle?
> > Perhaps there's a cleaner way of taking care of that problem.
> 
> I think he wants a function that means "DOS-ish behavior for certain
> things".

Sure, but I'd like to know the gory details.  Sometimes you can eat the 
cake and have it, too.