Question is: Shall we also convert the spots that are actually calling SDL
functions? ... I don't mind anyway, but others might argue that SDL-related
stuff should still use the SDL-related types?
I agree with others here that code that directly calls SDL can still use the SDL types; code that calls `SDL is already dependent on SDL and coupled to it so it makes sense to use SDL's typedefs in that case.
A general point from me on this: it's really annoying that SDL (and seemingly every other library ever) defines its own typedefs for integer types. Presumably there's a historical reason for that but I really wish it wasn't like that.
Thomas