Re: emacs-28 64ea1a1: Fix eshell for systems that do not have subprocesses

[Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>]

luangruo--- via Mailing list for Emacs changes <emacs-diffs@gnu.org>
writes:

> branch: emacs-28
> commit 64ea1a178c6cb3a436eeb6783237bd603be4f5e4
> Author: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Commit: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
>
>     Fix eshell for systems that do not have subprocesses
>
>     * lisp/eshell/esh-cmd.el (eshell-eval-command): Use
>     `eshell-processp' instead of `processp'.
> ---
>  lisp/eshell/esh-cmd.el | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/eshell/esh-cmd.el b/lisp/eshell/esh-cmd.el
> index a2464ad..213b7ab 100644
> --- a/lisp/eshell/esh-cmd.el
> +++ b/lisp/eshell/esh-cmd.el
> @@ -945,12 +945,12 @@ at the moment are:
>        ;; In that case, unwrap the value before checking the delimiter
>        ;; value.
>        (if (and val
> -               (not (processp val))
> +               (not (eshell-processp val))
>                 (not (eq val t)))
>            (error "Unmatched delimiter: %S" val)
>          ;; Eshell-command expect a list like (<process>) to know if the
>          ;; command should be async or not.
> -        (or (and (processp val) delim) val)))))
> +        (or (and (eshell-processp val) delim) val)))))
>
>  (defun eshell-resume-command (proc status)
>    "Resume the current command when a process ends."

Is this relevant only to MS-DOS?  If yes, should we add a comment to
that effect to `eshell-processp'?