Is there a more elegant way to do this?

[bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 05:13:41 UTC, bauss wrote:
> I was wondering if there's a more elegant way to do something 
> like this?
>
> [...]

I saw one improvement to it which would be BitSize!ChildType 
instead of taking parent type's bit size divided by two.

Also

value = ((highValue << 16 | low));

Is supposed to be

value = ((highValue << BitSize!ChildType | low));