When you have a sequence of statements that repeat with minor variations it can be easier to see the similarities and differences if the they are grouped into lines so that the differences align vertically.
I'd argue that the following is much more readable than it would have been if I'd split it over multiple lines:
switch(Type) {
case External_BL: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x - RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y - RadialClrY; break;
case External_BR: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x + RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y - RadialClrY; break;
case External_TR: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x + RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y + RadialClrY; break;
case External_TL: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x - RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y + RadialClrY; break;
case Internal_BL: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x + RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y + RadialClrY; break;
case Internal_BR: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x - RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y + RadialClrY; break;
case Internal_TR: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x - RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y - RadialClrY; break;
case Internal_TL: mpstrd["X"] = ptDig1.x + RadialClrX; mpstrd["Y"] = ptDig1.y - RadialClrY; break;
}
Update: In the comment's it's been suggested that this would be a more succinct way of doing the above:
switch(Type) {
case External_BL: dxDir = - 1; dyDir = - 1; break;
case External_BR: dxDir = + 1; dyDir = - 1; break;
case External_TR: dxDir = + 1; dyDir = + 1; break;
case External_TL: dxDir = - 1; dyDir = + 1; break;
case Internal_BL: dxDir = + 1; dyDir = + 1; break;
case Internal_BR: dxDir = - 1; dyDir = + 1; break;
case Internal_TR: dxDir = - 1; dyDir = - 1; break;
case Internal_TL: dxDir = + 1; dyDir = - 1; break;
}
mpstrd["X"] = pt1.x + dxDir * RadialClrX;
mpstrd["Y"] = pt1.y + dyDir * RadialClrY;
although it now fits in 80 columns I think my point still stands and I just picked a bad example. It does still demonstrate that placing multiple statements on a line can improve readability.