Re: PATCH: subshell into a new process group

On Sat, May 9, 2026 at 9:43 PM Bart Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2026 at 4:44 PM Anthony Heading <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > For non-interactive shells,  I don't think that & vs &! makes any
> > difference, it just affects whether the job escapes the job table and
> > thus avoids being SIGHUPed and so on. [...]  'disown' does feel like
> > the broad purpose is to push the child out of the nest.
>
> Hm, that raises an interesting point -- the "disown" builtin can't
> force the child to change process groups.  That would mean &! gets a
> separate special meaning.

I believe I over-thought that:  "disown" needs job control and this
change only applies to shells that don't have it.  I was thinking
"disown" could be passed a PID, but it can't.