From: nowhere@never.at   
      
   I  wrote:   
   ...   
   >>>> So when I look back to the xor-sub-sub 2:1 and your 50 byte variant   
   >>>> and compare what's required for direct modify with the 2:1 algo, we   
   >>>> may not gain too much :)   
      
   >>> wasn't "shorter than this" our previous target ? :)   
      
   >> Yes. Just getting this thing working is my current ambition!   
      
   > I'm sure that my brain still work on it in the background :)   
   > but I see no shorter way at the moment, let's wait a while...   
      
   oh yeah, I fooled myself by counting all bytes while awake ...   
      
   now it's more than obvious that a direct 4:3 SMC gain at least   
   25 bytes against all 2:1 variants:   
      
   all modifications can be done within the first two lines and   
   the string itself is halfed and now fits the third line !   
      
   we had ~016B as stringstart for 2:1.   
   now I made it 0184 (4 slide nops) to not have CRLF inbetween.   
   even this are 25 byte more it allow REP MOVS after start-scan.   
      
   further size reduction seems possible, I'll check.   
      
   btw: you posted something to the other 'too long' thread,   
   I see the header but can't open it.   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)