From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `eshell-under-cygwin-p' etc. inappropriate? Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:23:17 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87k7n3kzs1.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028697927 10584 127.0.0.1 (7 Aug 2002 05:25:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:25:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cJK2-0002kb-00 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 07:25:26 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17cJfU-0004eT-00 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 07:47:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cJKi-0000dy-00; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 01:26:08 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cJK8-0000da-00; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 01:25:32 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA17389; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:23:18 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: John Wiegley In-Reply-To: <87k7n3kzs1.fsf@alice.dynodns.net> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:6325 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:6325 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.