From: notsaying@nospicedham.invalid.org   
      
   "wolfgang kern"  wrote in news:oklfcb$1lr5$2   
   @gioia.aioe.org:   
      
   > James Harris wrote:   
   > ...   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >> What might be useful these days is a decoder for hex digit pairs. Then   
   >> the program would be human-readable - at least to people like   
   Wolfgang.   
   >   
   >> And if the code was position-independent it would even be editable!   
   >   
   > I already tried this because my favourite is hex, but it needs the   
   > conditional Sub,7 which will cause one more modify point.   
      
   Simple enough using 2:1, as I've already done that:   
      
   ZRPRht0XPR5t1PRRjW4iPaSV5LU1GK1GMUX+G=1GfUXG8+r6238wct083t+R=rY=   
   66UZ2202Zffffff0222F6====MJ=20=17===eeee+++slOBI9UnrAE7oAOnasfrM   
   ItvlpB9EEE7D8KaasWhfr8TreEGB9fr8Tw7h8v7a7sCjejeoAlpadITi8YoH9f7=   
   B409BA0801CD21C348656C6C6F20776F726C642124=   
      
   Only 3 lines of code (could be shortened a bit no doubt, and requiring a   
   terminal '=' is just 'cos it's the same 'test for end' code from the B64   
   decoder!)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)