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