Closed richelbilderbeek closed 5 years ago
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, we can read:
bool operator==(const tile& lhs, const tile& rhs) noexcept { return lhs.m_depth == rhs.m_depth && lhs.m_dx == rhs.m_dx && lhs.m_dy == rhs.m_dy && lhs.m_dz == rhs.m_dz && lhs.m_locked == rhs.m_locked && lhs.m_rotation == rhs.m_rotation && lhs.m_type == rhs.m_type && lhs.m_x == rhs.m_x && lhs.m_y == rhs.m_y && lhs.m_z == rhs.m_z ; } bool contains(const tile& t, double x, double y) noexcept { return x > t.get_x() - 5 && x < t.get_x() + t.get_width() + 5 && y > t.get_y() - 5 && y < t.get_y() + t.get_height() + 5; }
The first function nicely aligns its 'and's, the second does not.
Describe the solution you'd like
Align the text of the second function to resemble the first.
All tests should keep passing.
Describe alternatives you've considered
None.
Additional context
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, we can read:
The first function nicely aligns its 'and's, the second does not.
Describe the solution you'd like
Align the text of the second function to resemble the first.
All tests should keep passing.
Describe alternatives you've considered
None.
Additional context
None.