On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> > I think I am agreeing with you. My point is that there is no need to define
> > the type of truncation when you position the truncation symbol. As such, I
> > don't think that we are breaking alignment with Bath.
> But if we're assuming the equivalent of 104 truncation then you can put the
> mask character in the middle of the string. A Bath search can't do that. So
> can we still call it a Bath search?
The 104 truncation gives the searcher more options (there is also that
"#" option in 104), however, we can still represent the "narrower"
requirement of the Bath searches by placing the "?" at the end of the