Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11523
| From | Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: Misused term "subshell" in §3.3 of the Bash Manual |
| Date | 2015-09-21 14:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1539.1442843946.19560.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <726AC67C-1BA2-46B5-B9A3-B9263EDCD82C@qq.com> <20150921124942.GG25574@eeg.ccf.org> |
2015-09-21 08:49:42 -0400, Greg Wooledge: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 07:45:25PM +0800, ziyunfei wrote: > > "Functions may be exported so that *subshells* automatically have them defined with the -f option to the export builtin" > > > > Technically, a child shell process forked/execed by the current shell is not a real subshell, am I right? > > I agree with you, but it's not clear what the best wording should be. > Exported functions only work when the (grand)child process receiving > them is another instance of bash. [...] It's not that much the process parent/child relationship that matters. "export" if for passing things to *executed* commands (the environment is something that is passed to the execve() system call, whether in the current shell process or child or grandchild... one). -- Stephane
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: Misused term "subshell" in §3.3 of the Bash Manual Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 14:58 +0100
csiph-web