Vim and Evil compared. Documentation

After my previous article in this list, I learned a lot about Evil and Vim, and concluded that the two editors are equivalent. At least, I didn't find anything that I could do in Vim, but not in Evil.

I told before that I wanted to migrate from Evil to Vim, because Evil does not have a help system. However, I found out that Evil does have a help system. It seems that emacs is written in elisp, a language that runs on top of a small compiler, virtual machine and runtime written in C. Therefore, the source code of Evil is available, and each function is documented through strings that are placed immediately after the defun. When one presses :help, these strings are placed on the help window.

Evil automatic documentation is quite good. However, Vim documentation is very complete, with examples, and translations to many languages, like French and Esperanto. It is trivial to write a lisp function that inserts Vim documentation into Evil functions that are placed in the evil-commands.el file.

My question is: Is it illegal to do that, i.e., insert Vim documentation into Evil functions, so that Evil users can profit from the effort of Vim users?

In the mean time I am writing a tutorial that I designed for Evil users, but can be useful for Vim users too. I am updating it weekly. I will appreciate any feedback, corrections, and information about commands that work differently in Evil and Vim. The address is

advocacia.me/en/evil.html

There is also an evil.org file that can be downloaded from

advocacia.me/en/evil.org


--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.