 |
 |
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