JWT handling seems like a natural fit within the
context of Beast, and although
this is an implementation detail, it would seem logical for decode() to cope with that, no?
From your point of view as a user, yes it would seem like a natural fit.
From our point of view as maintainers of a single-purpose library, it would
not make sense to extend our public API into general-purpose base64 encoding/decoding at this time.
I'm not asking to make it public, just to tweak that implementation detail it to make it more lenient :)
Happy to discuss further if you'd like.
Well, what's to discuss after the above really? I'll just use something else.
Thanks for the quick reply Richard.
PS: I'm a fan of Richard Hipp's (of SQLite and Fossil fame) public domain C code in general,