Re: Misused term "subshell" in §3.3 of the Bash Manual

[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.

Maybe:

  Functions may be exported, using the -f option to the export builtin,
  so that they are automatically defined in all child bash shells.