> Why ? > Imo Is better a choice that allow use qt Who says we don't "allow" QT usage? It can be used with MinGW just as before (disregarding uncomfortable MinGW installation of DWARF builds), and it's not us who define the rules to use QT, it's Nokia.
> If qt find advantage of using msvcrtd.lib can't be advantage also for > harbour? > Wich Disadvantage in msvcrtd.lib? 1) It should be user choice to select non-default compiler options. Moreover if we enabled this, we would cut of easy selection of -MD/-MT mode by users. (this is why I removed -MT even) 2) Enabling this for QT is like the tail wagging the dog. QT is just one of the dozens/hundreds of libs usable with Harbour, and it looks slightly overkill to require all users to recompile all MSVC-built libs for the sake of one lib. 3) There are several options available to solve this problem locally, so Harbour is not the bottleneck here. IOW, it "allows" you to use QT is several scenarios, that's why we have build-time options, and that why you have QT sources at hand. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
