Ian - thanks for that; and I did note that Kim has reaffirmed the design criterion on previous occasions.

However . . .

Your first reference
> See http://www.ztw3.com/forum/forum_entry.php?id=10524 for an explanation
This doesn't actually make sense to me (or at least not in relation to my starting point) - I may be missing something.

Your second reference
> http://www.ztw3.com/forum/forum_entry.php?id=105244 for a work around.

which says:


> I thought that the ? wildcard stood for one exact character (and not
> zero characters like * can), so that ???.jpg would match only 123.jpg or
> abc.jpg, but not 1.jpg or 12.jpg, but when I enter that filespec it DOES
> match those shorter filenames.

This confusion appears quite often. Although it is not very intuitive to match the number of question marks *and less (except zero)* it is quite powerful. For example, if you want it to match 2-5 characters you can use "?????.jpg,-?.jpg". Or if you want an exact match of 4 characters use "????.jpg,-???.jpg".


The idea of having a syntax of "????.jpg,-???.jpg" is interesting BUT, oh so ugly and also quite clumsy.

Can I ask whether this situation ("2-5 characters") is a common one? Or, are we just being inventive with the status quo?

I would have thought that my scenario is (ever so slightly) more probable. The start and end of a file name are the most important parts of the label - the middle less so. Take a file name (at random, out of the past) such as ztw21137.zip - the ztw says what it is all about, but the 21137 is why we have a whole host of people looking out for the next zeta version.

I would therefore suggest that my mask of "s?.* to pick out the penultimate seems a straightforward and elegant syntax. The suggestion of "*s?.*,-*s.*" would ignore a file called "hiss.boo". (and "*s?.*,*ss.*,-*s.*" doesn't work either)

Kim (sorry) - I am not as yet convinced of the design mantra in this instance. If it is right, then why?

Regards

Chester