Re: base85 would it be accepted

[L A Walsh]

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 13/10/17 03:28, Eric Curtin wrote:
>   
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > I find base32 and base64 very useful in coreutils. If I wrote a base85
> > implementation in the same style would it be accepted? Just wondering,
> > don't want to waste my time submitting just in case.
> >     
>
> Well as the bit width increases there is more opportunity
> for application specific variations on the encoding.
> I quick check confirms this, so I'm thinking that base85
> is more useful as an application specific encoding used
> by pdf or git etc. rather than a standalone useful encoding/util.
>   
----
   I know this is a bit of an old topic, but nevertheless,
might be useful...

  If the utility was a "baseN" utility to allow arbitrary
N, up to, maybe, N=96 (0x20-0x7f -- printable characters or
*maybe*, N=95 if space was not usable for encoding (though
I don't see why it wouldn't), WITH the ability to read
the invoking filename to look for baseXX, and use a number
after 'base' as the default encoding base, then such a utility
might replace base32 and base64 (by eliminating the need for
special cases) and would seem to provide a more maintainable
single-source for bases 32 & 64, while also providing the ability
to make a link from base85->basnN, that would also implement
the feature Eric wants.

   Wouldn't that be a useful way for Eric to get what he wants,
while providing better maintenance for 32 & 64 by eliminating the
need for separate progs for each?

-l