style: add clang-tidy to keep names consistent

[DexrnZacAttack]

This will allow for IDEs to enforce the naming system, and we can add a GitHub action to verify that the naming system is being followed.

This .clang-tidy enforces:

constexpr int CONST_GLOBAL_VAR = 0;
int gGlobalVar = 0;

class Something {
    static constexpr int CONST_CLASS_MEMBER = 0;
    static int sStaticClassMember;

public:
    int mPublicField;
protected:
    int mProtectedField;
private:
    int mPrivateField;
}

[GRAnimated]

LGTM! I'm a little worried about static names that we have from Java Edition (such as LevelRenderer::allChanged and similar from b1.2) but I don't mind if we change them to make this repo consistent with itself.

[GRAnimated]

If Bagietas doesn't suggest any changes, you'll be good to merge. Otherwise, make those changes and then merge.

[DexrnZacAttack]

LGTM! I'm a little worried about static names that we have from Java Edition (such as LevelRenderer::allChanged and similar from b1.2) but I don't mind if we change them to make this repo consistent with itself.

We can add // NOTIDY to avoid changing them if needed.

[Bagietas]

Later today I will see if there's anything else we can enforce here.

[Bagietas]

We can add // NOTIDY to avoid changing them if needed.

I think if we decide for that enforcement, we should keep it consistent and apply to every name.

[DexrnZacAttack]

We can add // NOTIDY to avoid changing them if needed.

I think if we decide for that enforcement, we should keep it consistent and apply to every name.

Sounds good.

After this is merged, I will implement an actions thing to make sure there's no clang-tidy issues, and then I'll fix all the issues that clang-tidy reports (in another PR)

[DexrnZacAttack]

I wonder if we should switch to the more common m_ style, I think 4J used it because I remember seeing some kind of assert or something iirc that contained it

[Bagietas]

I wonder if we should switch to the more common m_ style, I think 4J used it because I remember seeing some kind of assert or something iirc that contained it

That's what I suggested long time ago but GRA was against it, don't remember what was the reason.

[DexrnZacAttack]

I wonder if we should switch to the more common m_ style, I think 4J used it because I remember seeing some kind of assert or something iirc that contained it

That's what I suggested long time ago but GRA was against it, don't remember what was the reason.

Shouldn't be too hard to switch in the future should we decide otherwise.

[Bagietas]

What I suggest to add:

readability-inconsistent-declaration-parameter-name
readability-misleading-indentation
readability-math-missing-parentheses