Thank you both. Actually, for what it is worth, my "homemade" method worked
very easily and rapidly. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Jeff

Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
Thanks, Graham, though I think Jeff has already gone in a different
direction. Also note, Jeff, that you'd need to add your identifier
after the f in the replace text.


"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
With hidden text displayed, a wildcard search for
(XE ")#(*")
replace with
\1\2 ^092f
should do the trick

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org



Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
I don't know any way to do what you're attempting (generate an index
based on just the # entries), but there may be a workaround. You
display the XE fields by displaying Hidden text. It may well be
possible, using wild cards, to search for text preceded by #, remove
the #, and add an \f switch to the end. See
http://www.gmayor.com/replace_using_wildcards.htm and hope that
Graham Mayor will weigh in here and give you the exact strings you
need for the job!

wrote in message
...
Thank you Suzanne. I was hoping you would reply.

I forgot to mention I am using Word 2002.

Help me understand. In my case with all these hundreds of names
already marked for indexing with a # before the name, can I now use
the switches to
generate an index for just the entries that are preceded
(identified?) by the #?

The only way I found to "reveal" the field code of my present index
code is
by trying to edit the index field and then it appears to be
INDEX \c "3" \z "1033"

Is this modifiable to generate a name index using the way I now
have it marked (#) for index entry? It would not really be
practical to re-mark all
these entries again.

Jeff

Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
Yes, there is a better way. Look at the Help topics for the XE and
INDEX fields and note the "identifier" switch that can be added to
the fields. When you create an index entry using the Mark Index
Entry dialog, there is no box to fill in the identifier, so you
have to add it to the field manually. But when you generate an
index with a given identifier, it will include only those XE
fields containing that identifier. The identifier is an \f switch
(which Help confusingly calls "Type" for XE fields and
"Identifier" for INDEX fields). wrote in
message ...
I am working on the manuscript of a book where I need to create 2
separate indexes: an index of names and a separate general index.

Actually this is a second edition of this book and the first
edition did have 2 indexes but I forgot how I did it. I do
notice that the "names" to be included in the separate name
index were all marked in their fields with a preceding #. as in:
{XE "#Smith"}

So when I generate the index, all the name entries that should
appear in the separate name index appear at the beginning of the
index where they can be easily identified, cut and pasted. So I
assume that what I did was: cut the names portion, repasted it in
the area labeled "Name Index" and then removed the # from all the
entries. Does that make sense? Is there a better way?

**Is there a way to use search/replace to remove all the # from
the names? Thanks.

Jeff