Should all SDL types have raw() accessors?

[nukep]

Back when "refactoring", I inadvertently broke the rust-sdl2_image library by removing the raw accessor from Renderer: https://github.com/AngryLawyer/rust-sdl2/commit/6070bfb19c3c75ee3bcd015c4af510c6ca17666d#commitcomment-9502773

Turns out the raw accessors are useful for more than just internal use.

For anyone extending rust-sdl2 to provide functionality that's out of scope here (such as sdl2-mixer, sdl2-ttf, etc.), it could be useful to obtain the raw pointers.

If we decide to do this, I propose adding a raw_mut() accessor as well. This will be especially important for when https://github.com/AngryLawyer/rust-sdl2/issues/108 is addressed):

#[inline] pub unsafe fn raw(&self) -> *const ll::SDL_Renderer { self.raw }

#[inline] pub unsafe fn raw_mut(&self) -> *mut ll::SDL_Renderer {
    use std::mem;
    unsafe { mem::transmute(self.raw) }
}

raw_mut() would accept the immutable &self to not break things like Renderer.

Thoughts?

[AngryLawyer]

I'd say yeah. As long as we mark things unsafe, and document them as 'Don't use this unless you know what you're doing!', then it makes sense.

[nukep]

How about from_ll() as well, for raw -> wrapped conversions? https://github.com/xsleonard/rust-sdl2_image/pull/28 needs to interop with textures and obtain the rust-sdl2 types from raw pointers.

[AngryLawyer]

Definitely.