Re: is /bin/sh the almquist shell?

[Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh%sdf.org@localhost>]

> From bounces-netbsd-users-owner-mayuresh=sdf.org%NetBSD.org@localhost Tue Mar 29 15:44:08 2022
> From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
> To: Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh%sdf.org@localhost>
> cc: netbsd-users%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: is /bin/sh the almquist shell?
> Content-ID: <23186.1648568591.1%jinx.noi.kre.to@localhost>
>
>     Date:        Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:50:14 GMT
>     From:        Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh%sdf.org@localhost>
>     Message-ID:  <202203291450.22TEoEql026948%sdf.org@localhost>
>
>   | could i get confirmation that the /bin/sh under netbsd is
>   | indeed the "almquist shell"?
>
> It is derived from that, yes.  As is the FreeBSD shell
>
> It would be a bit of a stretch thes days to say it (either) is
> the Almquist shell, but they both still contain quite a bit
> of Ken's original code, and certainly the basic design.
>
> But they really aren't "the" Almquist shell, any more than
> firefox is netscape.
>
> kre
>

robert, thanks for sharing that bit of information.
i asked the question because i needed to ascertain whether
/bin/sh supports recursion.
based on what i've read on the web (which has left me very
confused), it seems that the original unix "sh" did not
support recursion, and neither did bourne's "sh", and i
did not find any information regarding almquist's "sh"
other than the fact that it was mostly bourne "sh"
compatible with features added-in to better support
job-control.
should i start a separate thread asking for information
regarding netbsd's /bin/sh support for recursion?
thank you.