Re: Wildcard behavior different in SE and CI

[Carl Distefano cld@xxxxxxxx]

Reply to note from Harry Binswanger  Tue, 24 Mar
2009 18:07:36 -0400

> I found that this would find a "hit"
> ...
> Any thoughts?

Hard to tell without seeing the "hit" -- the string that the SEarch
command finds but the CI command doesn't. Why don't you post it here
(encode it)?

I suspect the problem is that your search string, "2.HIDE", is
always preceded by a 3-byte character (func JM), and 3-byters are
not reliably flagged by wildcard "[X]". It's a bug, a limitation --
call it what you will -- of the wildcard regime.

You might get better results if instead of:

'%--_XYENCode_start--
CI_/";3;X2.HIDE;W;~[/xxx;~[/
'%--_XYENCode___end--

you did something like:

'%--_XYENCode_start--
CI_/";2;X'JM2.HIDE;W;~[/xxx;~[/
'%--_XYENCode___end--

In other words, hard-code the func JM instead of using wildcard ;X
as a proxy for it.

Again, hard to say for sure without seeing the text you're searching
or trying to replace, but I bet there's a workaround.

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx