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
