🔎 Review code and implement additional static_asserts to help with compilation errors

[lukevalenty]

No description provided.

[Tradias]

Heya, what is the scope of this issue. I had a quick look at the code and spotted several mal style issue, e.g. using C++11 style std::add_pointer<void()>::type that could be replaced with void(*)(). Does that count towards the Review code part? And what to do about them, report them here or create a pull request right away?

[lukevalenty]

Heya, what is the scope of this issue. I had a quick look at the code and spotted several mal style issue, e.g. using C++11 style std::add_pointer<void()>::type that could be replaced with void(*)(). Does that count towards the Review code part? And what to do about them, report them here or create a pull request right away?

If you find specific issues you think should be cleaned up or fixed, you could either report a new issue or submit a pull request.

The advantage of submitting an issue first is that you can find out if the maintainers agree before you put in the effort of a pull request. I'm not sure changing out the std::add_pointer type trait is worthwhile, however, it would be worthwhile to ensure a consistent style is used for defining function pointers.

[Tradias]

Ok, setting up tooling to ensure such consistent styling is probably not a good first issue 😄. I will see what else can be done.