> The advantage I see to ** is that it means one less in our repertoire of
> special characters. Is there really a possible ambiguity of ** with the use
> of * to mask characters? That is, any possible ambiguity that isn't solved by
> the escaping detailed at
> So for example:
> a left-truncation search on "*xyz" would be *\*xyz.
> A word search on "*xyz" would be **\*xyz**
> A word, left-truncated search on "xyz" would be ***xyz**
If we can have **, then this would imply, incorrectly, ?? for zero or one
words. BUT ?? is meaningful as characters (up to two characters)
Also, is '***foobar':
1. '(**)(*)foobar' which would match 'fred bertfoobar'
2. '(*)(**)foobar' which would match 'fredbert foobar' but not the above
And if one, how do you express the other?
I'm sticking by '|' personally.
Rob
--
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
