Then the server can either do the search if it can (without being pedantic
and saying that I know what you want me to do, but that is not a true Bath
search) or send a diagnostic, e.g. 120 - unsupported truncation attribute.
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 17 May 2002 16:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: cql index definitions
Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> I think I am agreeing with you. My point is that there is no need to
> the type of truncation when you position the truncation symbol. As such,
> 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.
can we still call it a Bath search?