Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:47 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?V=C3=A1clav_Zeman?= <vhaisman@gmail.com> To: Reid Linnemann <linnemannr@gmail.com> Cc: rank1seeker@gmail.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /bin/sh => STDIN & functions, var scope messing Message-ID: <CAKw7uVjty2cJXT_QmexxKdRQyiKoHYMK1E-TjSHa5TCX1S8Bbg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B0MdpOcz7aw03HCrbxZVt1cnWdR4shqWaEfBrQkCpPnbgXLPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130527.194235.693.1@DOMY-PC> <CA%2B0MdpOcz7aw03HCrbxZVt1cnWdR4shqWaEfBrQkCpPnbgXLPQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote: > from SH(1) > > "Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe- > line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a > child > of the sh process." > > I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has sh_f execute in a > subshell in which global_scope_var changes, but the original shell's copy > is uncahnged. Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct? -- VZ
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKw7uVjty2cJXT_QmexxKdRQyiKoHYMK1E-TjSHa5TCX1S8Bbg>