some formatting bits in dogmove.c

This commit is contained in:
PatR
2022-02-19 14:55:01 -08:00
parent e972d0b965
commit 661947ebaf

View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
/* NetHack 3.7 dogmove.c $NHDT-Date: 1609617569 2021/01/02 19:59:29 $ $NHDT-Branch: NetHack-3.7 $:$NHDT-Revision: 1.96 $ */
/* NetHack 3.7 dogmove.c $NHDT-Date: 1645311270 2022/02/19 22:54:30 $ $NHDT-Branch: NetHack-3.7 $:$NHDT-Revision: 1.108 $ */
/* Copyright (c) Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1985. */
/*-Copyright (c) Robert Patrick Rankin, 2012. */
/* NetHack may be freely redistributed. See license for details. */
@@ -970,7 +970,8 @@ dog_move(register struct monst *mtmp,
uncursedcnt++;
}
better_with_displacing = should_displace(mtmp, poss, info, cnt, g.gx, g.gy);
better_with_displacing = should_displace(mtmp, poss, info, cnt,
g.gx, g.gy);
chcnt = 0;
chi = -1;
@@ -1097,10 +1098,11 @@ dog_move(register struct monst *mtmp,
&& rn2(13 * uncursedcnt))
continue;
/* lessen the chance of backtracking to previous position(s) */
/* This causes unintended issues for pets trying to follow
the hero. Thus, only run it if not leashed and >5 tiles
away. */
/*
* Lessen the chance of backtracking to previous position(s).
* This causes unintended issues for pets trying to follow the
* hero. Thus, only run it if not leashed and >5 tiles away.
*/
if (!mtmp->mleashed && distmin(mtmp->mx, mtmp->my, u.ux, u.uy) > 5) {
k = has_edog ? uncursedcnt : cnt;
for (j = 0; j < MTSZ && j < k - 1; j++)
@@ -1140,8 +1142,7 @@ dog_move(register struct monst *mtmp,
}
/* Identify the best target in a straight line from the pet;
* if there is such a target, we'll let the pet attempt an
* attack.
* if there is such a target, we'll let the pet attempt an attack.
*/
mtarg = best_target(mtmp);
@@ -1153,10 +1154,11 @@ dog_move(register struct monst *mtmp,
if (mattacku(mtmp))
return 2;
/* Treat this as the pet having initiated an attack even if it
* didn't, so it will lose its move. This isn't entirely fair,
* but mattacku doesn't distinguish between "did not attack" and
* "attacked but didn't die" cases, and this is preferable to
* letting the pet attack the player and continuing to move */
* didn't, so it will lose its move. This isn't entirely fair,
* but mattacku doesn't distinguish between "did not attack"
* and "attacked but didn't die" cases, and this is preferable
* to letting the pet attack the player and continuing to move.
*/
mstatus = MM_HIT;
} else {
mstatus = mattackm(mtmp, mtarg);
@@ -1172,7 +1174,7 @@ dog_move(register struct monst *mtmp,
if ((mstatus & MM_HIT) && !(mstatus & MM_DEF_DIED)
&& rn2(4) && mtarg != &g.youmonst) {
/* Can monster see? If it can, it can retaliate
/* Can monster see? If it can, it can retaliate
* even if the pet is invisible, since it'll see
* the direction from which the ranged attack came;
* if it's blind or unseeing, it can't retaliate
@@ -1184,15 +1186,15 @@ dog_move(register struct monst *mtmp,
}
}
}
/* Only return 3 if the pet actually made a ranged attack, and thus
* should lose the rest of its move.
/* Only return 3 if the pet actually made a ranged attack, and
* thus should lose the rest of its move.
* There's a chain of assumptions here:
* 1. score_targ and best_target will never select a monster that
* can be attacked in melee, so the mattackm call can only ever
* try ranged options
* 2. if the only attacks available to mattackm are ranged options,
* and the monster cannot make a ranged attack, it will return
* MM_MISS.
* 1. score_targ and best_target will never select a monster
* that can be attacked in melee, so the mattackm call can
* only ever try ranged options
* 2. if the only attacks available to mattackm are ranged
* options, and the monster cannot make a ranged attack, it
* will return MM_MISS.
*/
if (mstatus != MM_MISS)
return 3;