> Furthermore macos certainly doesn't take enough of emacs outside of readline bindings to make me comfortable referring to them as emacs bindings. That’s fair

> Furthermore macos certainly doesn't take enough of emacs outside of readline bindings to make me comfortable referring to them as emacs bindings. That’s fair. But on the other hand they also don’t implement any of the Readline keybindings that are not in Emacs, like for example C-w and C-u to delete the last word and line, respectively. > I hadn't even noticed that zsh and fish used something other than readline. To me, they effectively are using readline as that's the name for the functionality that's fulfilled. IMO, that’s like calling Vim and Emacs for “TextEdit” because that’s what they do. I see the argument, but it is confusing. Readline is one particular library, and it is relevant to many users like me whether it’s used or not. Many alternatives (as used by Fish and IPython for example) have better support for modern features like multi-line editing and syntax highlighting. Conversely, if MacOS actually used libreadline, I should have been able to enable Vi mode in .inputrc and get Vi keybindings in every MacOS text field, which I think many Mac users would want. But alas, MacOS ignores .inputrc, although there is a somewhat equivalent DefaultKeyBinding.dict. If you customize your .inputrc it also quickly becomes apparent that Fish and Zsh for example ignore your Readline settings.