Implement sf::Event::visit

[vittorioromeo]

See #3014.

[ChrisThrasher]

In the original event API there was significant pushback to there being more than one way to process events. Have we moved past that?

[vittorioromeo]

In the original event API there was significant pushback to there being more than one way to process events. Have we moved past that?

My personal gripe was having both a switch-based interface and one based on types, because it created duplication of sf::Event::TYPE and sf::Event::Type::TYPE and provided two ways of achieving the same imperative sort of checking.

I don't have a problem with supporting visitation as it is a type-based interface which is compatible with our new event handling model.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9371524011

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 4 of 4 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.006%) to 55.675%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9363312342:	0.006%
Covered Lines:	11545
Relevant Lines:	19613

---

💛 - Coveralls