Page 1 of 1

Can Search be less 'strict'?

Posted: 10 Mar 2019 19:31
by chumbo
Hi,
I was searching for a folder which had the words 'Black Box' in it. I knew I had it somewhere but it might have had some words before 'Black Box' so I couldn't just manually search alphabetically.

So I used the Search function and in Name, I simply entered: black box (with Attributes set to Directory). However nothing came up!? So I reduced the search to: black, and of course found quite a few, among which....'Black.Box'!
You guessed it, that dot between Black & Box was the problem!

Isn't there a way to make the search a bit more relaxed, so that it just finds each occurrence of the words black & box, but wherever they may be in a folder/files name? So that not only "The.Big.Black.Box" would be found but also something like "A Black Hat and a Red Box" would be also found?

Thanks!

Re: Can Search be less 'strict'?

Posted: 10 Mar 2019 19:53
by highend
I don't want to find "something", I'm looking for concise matches. So why don't you just execute a less strict search like
:black & box
or
>black.*box
?

Re: Can Search be less 'strict'?

Posted: 10 Mar 2019 22:54
by chumbo
So why don't you just execute a less strict search
I think the answer is pretty obvious... because I didn't know how to do what you describe.
In fact, I see it works (thanks!) but I definitely don't understand it.
What is the " : " and " & ", " > " (the * wildcard, I knew about) doing in the search function, I have no idea but ok, I'll take note.
Thanks.

Re: Can Search be less 'strict'?

Posted: 10 Mar 2019 23:03
by highend
F1 key while in the search dialog would have explained them...

Re: Can Search be less 'strict'?

Posted: 11 Mar 2019 00:33
by chumbo
Yikes! Just clicked that F1 button...it would have taken me an hour or more to read and digest it all so thanks for the help! :wink: