From: ville
Subject: [SDL] Changing, at least some, anonymous enums to named enums.
Howdy,
Could, some if not all, enums be named rather than being anonymous enums?
I ran into troubles with the enum describing event types in SDL_events.h.
The problem is that an anonymous enum cannot be used in C++ templates like
so:
enum { C };
template< typename T >
void
f( T ) {
}
f( C );
From: Vassilis Virvilis <vasvir@iit.demokritos.gr>
Subject: [SDL] Request: Please reconsider adding tag in SDL_Event
Hi,
Patch in question:
--- include/SDL_events.h 20 Aug 2004 18:57:01 -0000 1.11
+++ include/SDL_events.h 19 Jan 2006 17:35:09 -0000
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
} SDL_SysWMEvent;
/* General event structure */
-typedef union {
+typedef union SDL_Event {
Uint8 type;
SDL_ActiveEvent active;
SDL_KeyboardEvent key;
Reasoning:
----------
1) Allows forward declaration of the SDL_Event union in C++. Please
note that in plain C it is possible to forward declare it.
2) Forward declaration is good because it allows encapsulation. It hides
the specific implementation and does not necessarily exposes SDL staff
to my appication's namespace
3) It can't harm plain C because tags are living in a different namespace
than typenames
4) It is already done like this in other places in SDL. Check for example
SDL_KeySym, and SDL_.*Event structures.
5) Right now I have to include SDL/event.h from a C++ header file. See 2)
From: "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer"
Subject: [SDL-CVS][patch] add missing SDLCALL to headers
the small patch attached below (against current CVS) adds some missing SDLCALL
decorations to callback types and arguments.
Unfortunately one of these changes breaks your gen{def,exp}.pl scripts which
should be changed to use non-greedy regular expression matching...
From: David Symmonds
Subject: SDL Typedef Structs
Hi, Thanks for the SDL libraries, I have been using them for about a year
now and they are really brilliant. One thing that I have just found whilst
using them through C++ (and needing forward declarations) is that when you
typedef structs you sometimes use
typedef struct Name
{
...
}Name;
e.g. SDL_Surface
and other times use
typedef struct
{
...
}Name;
e.g. SDL_Rect
The first type works fine, when I define a header file I can just put
'struct Name;' at the top and use the Name throughout. However, the second
type is harder to use in a header, and I haven't found a way yet, other than
to include 'SDL.h' in the header file (undesirable). Would there be any harm
in changing the definition of SDL_Rect and such like to the second form?
