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?