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

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> 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".

John