Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: Misused term =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22subshel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?l=22_in_=A73=2E3?= of the Bash Manual
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:58:58 +0100
Lines: 20
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.1539.1442843946.19560.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <726AC67C-1BA2-46B5-B9A3-B9263EDCD82C@qq.com> <20150921124942.GG25574@eeg.ccf.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: bug-bash@gnu.org
To: Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150921124942.GG25574@eeg.ccf.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:11523

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