From: nowhere@never.at   
      
   Terje Mathisen wrote:   
   ...   
   >>> So you decide the rules and tell and show us (if you want).   
   >>   
   >> Thanks, I thought real needs caused this restrictions.   
   >> So my rules for such an Base64 decoder would allow ASCII 33..127 and   
   >> nothing less than 386 code.   
      
   > That's rather stupid IMHO:   
      
   > If you have 95 available characters you should get at least 6.5   
   > bits/char, i.e. with such a large alphabet you need to use something   
   > more efficient than Base64.   
      
   Yes, I just wanted to take on the challenge for "shortest Base64" decoder.   
      
   My idea was 7 bit and two prefix chars to sub constants for 128..255   
   and 00..32, but didn't check as this may be no the shortest solution.   
      
   > My first ascii executable used both POP BX and Base91. :-)   
      
   was it much shorter then ?   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)