Comments on base52 encoder/decoder ?

[Paul Rubin]

bokr at oz.net (Bengt Richter) writes:
> What it boils down to is that there are enough codes for two sets
> of encodings plus 9023 special codes. You can think of it as a single
> bit attribute for arbitrary subsequences of binary bytes with no extra
> encoding characters vs doing them separately as before, and 9023 integer
> codes can be inserted also at a cost of 3 code characters apiece. You
> can think of them as available escape codes.

I'd vote for getting rid of the fancy stuff with the integer codes,
and also making the odd-character the last character in the encoded
string rather than the first.  The reason is that lets you encode a
stream where you don't know the length in advance.