On 8/7/2013 5:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Chang Shu <csh...@gmail.com> wrote:
But it appears to me we have to introduce
another pair of coders, say BinaryDecoder/BinaryEncoder, in addition
to TextDecoder/TextEncode since the signatures of the decode/encode
functions are different.
So TextDecoder is bytes to string and TextEncoder is string to bytes.
If we always represent the base64-variant as a sequence of bytes the
signature seems fine. If you want to get a string out of those bytes
again you could utf-8 decode it for instance.
I'd be interested in knowing what the level of interest is outside of
Google for this feature.
There are enough places in my code where being able to decode/encode
base64 from a typed array is a necessary step that I added helper
functions to do this locally, particularly when I am about to shove it
through charset conversion as well. Eliminating a copy step would be
useful, although I don't think I'm pushing enough data through this
functions to make a noticeable performance difference.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth E
