Looks fine, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pass the Vector2/Rect2 as reference and modify it inside the function, instead of returning new one 🤔
In many cases you create a new rect when there wasn't one. Then again, it's super cheap, so maybe it's not a concern, idk.

Looks fine, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pass the Vector2/Rect2 as reference and modify it inside the function, instead of returning new one 🤔 In many cases you create a new rect when there wasn't one. Then again, it's super cheap, so maybe it's not a concern, idk.

It would make code even simpler imo, I can make that change

It would make code even simpler imo, I can make that change

Actually, I don't think this should be done. There are a few instances of both methods being used where the output is assigned to another variable and the input is used later, so these methods should not modify the input.

Thanks!