⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️

This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.

If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.

{{Vptopic |topic=XBase languages |summary=What to do with Clipper and Harbour (and Flagship etc.) }} I was chatting on IRC over the weekend, trying to figure out what to do with the XBase family of languages. On some tasks we have an entry for Clipper and an entry for Harbour (a superset of the former) and in both cases the code is exactly the same.

Mike Richter suggested that we do what's done for the Prolog family, where each dialect is a subheading. What bothers me a little is that if a task couldn't be done by Clipper but could be done by Harbour (or some other superset), then having Clipper in the list of implementation languages at the top of the task would be slightly misleading.

Another idea, a modification of Mike's, would be to put everything under an XBase heading.

Before I go in and do that, is there a compelling reason not to? [[User:Axtens|Axtens]] ([[User talk:Axtens|talk]]) 01:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)