If you define encoding and decoding on a range, there's no need to
allocate for every pass through the loop. You reuse the buffer.
@Sean: I doubt you'll see any performance improvement if you encode
in-place vs. in a separate buffer.
Andrei
On 10/10/10 22:25 CDT, Masahiro Nakagawa wrote:
I agree. Last night, I thought about encode / decode with buffer.
In range, each memory allocation on loop is bad...
Masahiro
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:45:08 +0900, Sean Kelly <[email protected]>
wrote:
As others have said, I'd like this to use ranges instead if possible,
and I'd like the option to supply a destination range as well. The
majority of work I do with this sort of thing encodes in-place into
existing buffers.
On Oct 10, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Masahiro Nakagawa wrote:
Current std.base64 is not Boost License.
So, I wrote base64 module.
http://bitbucket.org/repeatedly/scrap/src/tip/base64.d
This module is based on RFC4648 and faster than std.base64.
In addition, User can encode / decode modified Base64 format using
Base64Impl.
What do you think?
Masahiro
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
