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?
>
> --Ray

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
search string.
Larry