This is a small error I've encountered occasionally over time. In a
Text field, I have the following entry:

Army - Navy Screen Magazine #34

With this record active, I enter that text field, do a "Select All"
keystroke, "Copy", "Find", and "Paste" so I've entered the exact data
copied from that field into that field for a Find.

.. . . but I get "No matching Records" as a result?

Is there something about the non-alphabetic characters here that
nullifies the search? This seems very strange.

Albert

Albert <asteg (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

I get the same result. The search is successful if you put everything
besides this "#" character in the field when searching.

You never need the exact field contents for a search. You get the record
you look for (and possibly some more) when searching for

army
navy
army navy
army screen
arm maga

etc.
--
http://clk.ch

Albert <asteg (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

Yes, there is. This is expected behavior. Find uses the index of the
field and non-alphanumeric characters are not indexed. You can change
this by chosing ASCII for the field index.

It's none of these reasons/has nothing to do with indexing.

Find mode has several symbols that have special meaning.

The # symbol is one of them.... a placeholder for a single digit of a
number.

Example:

2#2 finds

212
202
252

but not

22
234
2X2

If you want to do a find the way you've described then you enclose the whole
thing in quotes:

"Army - Navy Screen Magazine #34"

Your search will function as you expect.

To see all the special symbols, go to Find mode and on the left in the
status area you will see a little arrow button labeled "Symbols" just
underneath the Omit checkbox.

"Hans" <jrijnb (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl> wrote

Bill Marriott <wjm (AT) wjm (DOT) org> wrote:

Thanks for the correction. I gave a sloppy answer and should stick to
the practice of thinking and testing before hitting the send button.

In article <E4-dnetDPvSlCKbYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,
"Bill Marriott" <wjm (AT) wjm (DOT) org> wrote:

AH! Thanks for the explanation -- this makes good sense, of course.

albert