Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 03:15:01 +0100 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?

.TH "SDL_CDStop" "3" "Tue 11 Sep 2001, 22:59" "SDL" "SDL API Reference" 
.SH "NAME"
SDL_CDStop\- Stops a CDROM
.SH "SYNOPSIS"
.PP
\fB#include "SDL\&.h"
.sp
\fBint \fBSDL_CDStop\fP\fR(\fBSDL_CD *cdrom\fR);
.SH "DESCRIPTION"
.PP
Stops play on the given \fBcdrom\fR\&.
.SH "RETURN VALUE"
.PP
Returns \fB0\fR on success, or \fB-1\fR on an error\&.
.SH "SEE ALSO"
.PP
\fI\fBSDL_CDPlay\fP\fR,
...\" created by instant / docbook-to-man, Tue 11 Sep 2001, 22:59