chars

In the past I've used 'unsigned char' everywhere, but it's a mess because strings are chars and all library functions expect chars.

So why not copy all of the 8-bit chars into a u64 and compare that directly?

On clicking you can set to true/false hdl.hardening(bool) in order to get very specials chars.

And if you really had 80 chars of preliminary table condiments and your bcrypt implementation truncated at 72 -- well that's just textbook.

I learned to script in EasyUO to up chars in unofficial servers, and sell it to friends.

When you want more than 140 chars (not that Twitter should ever change that), Ello is a great place for the long form.

Now, convert the document to a list of all detected characters (we don't actually care what the chars are).

I can't always fit what I want in 50 chars and adding a second line can be too much.

EG mobile passwords should avoid special chars and be longer to tradeoff.

I get why they chose the ascii chars they chose; with J, I feel totally lost.

Then it doesn't have to waste any time passing over those chars.

The good thing is that it doesn't support URL's that are longer than 18 chars, and only supports 14 top tier TLD's so pretty much USA only.

Some points I noticed: Works on Windows "out-of-the-box", conceptually simpler, highlights matched chars..

"goodnight moon": Insecure but 120 bits (16 chars) of 'entropy' "5%ML#_rjMe": Secure but "only" 80 bits (10 chars) of 'entropy' Now you could argue, that the word 'entropy' would discount any sentence based passwords by definition, but that's not how I've seen people [mis]use it.

This is what I've found: Chars: I hate it that they are signed because I like the convention of promoting them to int, and then using -1 as an error.