If a searcher puts a question mark in the middle of a term, then it wasn't a
Bath search anyway. So what's the problem?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:23 AM
> 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 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?