Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Another case-(in)sensitivity question. HAS FOO vs IS *FOO* (Read 1224 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Another case-(in)sensitivity question. HAS FOO vs IS *FOO*

I'd call this a bit strange. There might be a good reason, but I'm not sure:

%album% HAS TT
is case sensitive and returns not much more than THRaKaTTaK.

%album% IS *TT*
is insensitive and hits a lot.


Obvious why and how questions arise.

Re: Another case-(in)sensitivity question. HAS FOO vs IS *FOO*

Reply #1 –
"HAS" is not all the way case sensitive.
foobar2000 v1.4 introduced Unicode asymmetric search for some of the matching operations. Apparently "IS" was left out.
Under "HAS" semantics, typing "TT" matches "TT" but not "tt"; typing "tt" matches both "tt" and "TT".
I'll fix the inconsistency for the next update.


Also there have already been usual complaints about the new behavior so there's a switch to revert to 1.3 semantics buried deep in Advanced Preferences.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.
 

Re: Another case-(in)sensitivity question. HAS FOO vs IS *FOO*

Reply #2 –
I was one of those who nagged you to get the asymmetric search, so pleeeeease keep it.