Re: [PATCH 3/6] rust: add `bitfield!` macro

[John Hubbard]

On 1/27/26 5:28 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed Jan 28, 2026 at 6:10 AM JST, Gary Guo wrote:
>> On Tue Jan 27, 2026 at 9:03 PM GMT, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 1/27/26 1:57 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>> On Tue Jan 27, 2026 at 11:55 AM JST, Yury Norov wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>> Given the signature in the API I would agree with Yury that `with_` is better.
> 
> Indeed, given the signature of the method `with_` is definitely more
> idiomatic. But that is also true for the non-const setter, and they
> unfortunately cannot share the same name.
> 

oh that is unfortunate.

> Alternative names I can think of for the non-const / const setters:
> 
> - `with_foo`/`with_foo_const`, but that's a bit verbose,

Yes, but it is also at least slightly self-explanatory: "the name
is a little ugly, but you can see what it is for".

> - `with_foo`/`const_foo`, but that's not idiomatic either,
> - `with_foo_val`/`with_foo`, but that increases the risk of name
>   clashes.
> 
> ... so unless there are better proposals I guess the
> `set_foo`/`with_foo` is at least practical, if a bit unconventional.

...whereas this choice just looks unhinged, at first glance:
"what? whhhyyy???" haha :)

And eventually the reader figures out why. Maybe.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard