Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] rust: add useful ops for u64

[John Hubbard]

On 2/19/25 4:51 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Yes, that looks like the optimal way to do this actually. It also
> doesn't introduce any overhead as the destructuring was doing both
> high_half() and low_half() in sequence, so in some cases it might
> even be more efficient.
>
> I'd just like to find a better naming. high() and low() might be enough?
> Or are there other suggestions?

Maybe use "32" instead of "half":

    .high_32()  / .low_32()
    .upper_32() / .lower_32()


thanks,
--
John Hubbard