Removing it outright might be a bit too harsh. I've opted to deprecate it for now.

Maybe you could add a blanket unsafe impl<T: ?Sized + HasWindowHandle> HasRawWindowHandle for T { ... }? That would mean less work for crates wanting to implement these traits.

Maybe you could add a blanket unsafe impl<T: ?Sized + HasWindowHandle> HasRawWindowHandle for T { ... }? That would mean less work for crates wanting to implement these traits.

Banger idea, I've implemented this

What would you say people who don't have borrowing lifetimes on their handles do

What would you say people who don't have borrowing lifetimes on their handles do

I'm not sure I understand the question, but what would an example of this be? Like, what would be a situation where you, as a "provider" type, would like to say "hey, I have this window handle, its lifetime is not tied to me (&self), but I don't know the lifetime of it either"?

So SDL gives you *mut SDL_Window when you make a window.

and because pointers are Copy the "lifetime" of that pointer, as the compiler sees it, is not anything sensible because there's all sorts of spots where you'll accidentally get a copy of the value instead of extending the life of a borrow on the pointer, or some other fiddly thing like that.

So there's certainly some span of time that's correct (until you call SDL_DestroyWindow), but Rust's borrow checker won't know what the correct time is.

Makes sense. In this case, don't implement Has[Raw]WindowHandle for the pointer, because it doesn't have a window handle for its full lifetime.

Instead, expose an unsafe method like this:

/// # Safety
/// The window must not be destroyed for the lifetime of the handle
pub unsafe fn get_handle<'a>(window: *mut SDL_Window) -> WindowHandle<'a> { ... }

Note that WindowHandle<'_> implements HasWindowHandle, so graphics crates that take T: HasWindowHandle will still work. Note also that the lifetime here is unbounded, so the user can choose 'static if that's needed by their graphics crate.

Alright, as long as we've thought about it and we have some answer, then we can proceed

It seems to me that everyone is fine with this, so I'll merge it.