... Well, yes, obviously. Text emails use a limited character set and the ... you can see, that more than one hash-like character was meant originally andMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 5 12:39 AMView Sourcehsavage wrote:
> I have no troubleWell, yes, obviously. Text emails use a limited character set and the
> replacing the (hash)number characters from the sample.
example got boiled down by the interface. But from:
>> ;FIND "# & # AND REPLACEyou can see, that more than one hash-like character was meant originally
and presumably both aren't our basic 7-bit ASCII "#".
... You re quite right, but its odd that its required. I would not have thought of # as a whole word (or even a word character). Regards, SheriMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 5 9:15 AMView Source--- In email@example.com, loro <loro-spam01-@...> wrote:
>You're quite right, but its odd that its required. I would not have
> Robin Chapple wrote:
> > At 5/12/2006 11:47, loro wrote: Add a "T" to the
> > flags. I thought that not to search for whole words
> > only was the default, but obviously not.
> > Pardon my ignorance. What is a "T" in this context?
> Instead of WAIS use WAIST. As Sheri also pointed out
> your clip finds "#" when it's on its own but not in a
> string, so I assumed that was the problem with your
> text too. From help: "T: Does not search for whole
> words only (search string can be found within longer
thought of "#" as a "whole word" (or even a word character).