Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > My thought was that the subshell takes us back to the original state, > regardless of what it was. As opposed to "set +f" which takes us back to > a particular state. But it is unlikely that we'd have done a global "set > -f" before calling this, so maybe that is being overly conservative. Overly conservative, yes, but if it is not too much overhead, I think it is a good practice anyway.
