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_UnlockYUVOverlay" "3" "Tue 11 Sep 2001, 23:01" "SDL" "SDL API Reference" 
.SH "NAME"
SDL_UnlockYUVOverlay\- Unlock an overlay
.SH "SYNOPSIS"
.PP
\fB#include "SDL\&.h"
.sp
\fBvoid \fBSDL_UnlockYUVOverlay\fP\fR(\fBSDL_Overlay *overlay\fR);
.SH "DESCRIPTION"
.PP
The opposite to \fI\fBSDL_LockYUVOverlay\fP\fR\&. Unlocks a previously locked overlay\&. An overlay must be unlocked before it can be displayed\&.
.SH "SEE ALSO"
.PP
\fI\fBSDL_UnlockYUVOverlay\fP\fR, \fI\fBSDL_CreateYUVOverlay\fP\fR, \fI\fBSDL_Overlay\fR\fR
...\" created by instant / docbook-to-man, Tue 11 Sep 2001, 23:01