Page 1 of 1
"[" & "]" no longer work as chars in search on filename
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2025 1:21 am
by MacAhi
I have many thousands of files which have keywords inside []. I also use {} and () for other purposes, so I can't just change.
I used to be able to search using [keyword], but it doesn't work any more and I can't find anything in the settings to allow or exclude certain chars. I'm also not using Regular Expressions, so there's no reason [] should be excluded.
Using '[' alone returns no results.
Using ']' alone returns the entire database.
This is a recent change.
1.9.8 64bit (Dec 4 2025) - LibFormat 7.230 (MacOS)
Re: "[" & "]" no longer work as chars in search on filename
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2025 6:45 am
by jkm
There are multiple ways to search on the filename, and you do not specify what exactly you are doing.
I can confirm searches for [ and ] do not work as expected when using the "Filename" field at the top of the search dialog.
However, if you add Filename as a condition (or Filename with extension, or File path) then then searches for those characters do work properly.
Use that method until Pierre can attend to this.
In the future, where you're doing things that have multiple approaches, it's best to either be very specific or provide a screenshot to document specifics.
Also, FYI, searching against filename as a condition is more flexible, as you can use booleans and multiple conditions, and you can also save repetitive searches of this type as Smart Albums.
Re: "[" & "]" no longer work as chars in search on filename
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2025 11:10 pm
by MacAhi
In the future, where you're doing things that have multiple approaches, it's best to either be very specific or provide a screenshot to document specifics.
Also, FYI, searching against filename as a condition is more flexible, as you can use booleans and multiple conditions, and you can also save repetitive searches of this type as Smart Albums.
In the future, don't be such a condescending prig.
While your suggestion to use the Filename condition is in fact a good one. I've never even noticed that before since it's been unnecessary. The rest of your post smacks of a smugness which isn't appreciated or needed. I'm willing to bet that I have far more experience, (which includes >45 years as a developer) working with computers and software than you do. That my post wasn't to your liking is understood. You've made that abundantly clear.
Perhaps next time if you need clarification, you'll ask for it instead of pontificating.
Thank you for the suggested work-around.