From: james.harris.1@nospicedham.gmail.com   
      
   On 18/07/2017 22:34, James Harris wrote:   
   > On 18/07/2017 19:34, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:   
   >> "wolfgang kern"  wrote in news:oklfc9$1lr5$1   
   >> @gioia.aioe.org:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> James Harris asked:   
   >>>   
   >>>> How short was the (current) shortest solution?   
   >>>   
   >>> by adopting Kerr Mudd-John's decoder routine we are down to 209 byte   
   >>> yet.   
   >>> __   
   >>> wolfgang   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Depends on the spec; my shortest using only B64 chars is 246.   
   >   
   > OK. Whether 209 or 246 it's a substantial bit of code to write in   
   > printable characters!   
      
   On the size, has anyone looked at writing a normal base64 decoder,   
   encoding it in a form which is easy to decode, and decoding it first. By   
   that I mean that at present I gather the source "text" will have the   
   following   
      
         
      
   And I wonder if it would be shorter to change that to   
      
         
      
   The pre-decoder would convert just the base64 decoder to binary. The   
   binary version of the base64 decoder would then decode the text. The   
   pre-decoder would decode a simple format.   
      
   On one hand, the base64 decoder might take up more room. On the other it   
   could use any asm instructions so might be shorter. (Some or all of the   
   pad could be saved, too.)   
      
      
   --   
   James Harris   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)