Taking a look- silenz.  This one looks to be tricky.

silenz, after bouncing ideas back and forth, it looks like this is going to be a limitation of using a custom prefix.  For sure in 1.6- when 2.0 is AR across the board, it can be addressed there.

The problem is- there is no way to match just the table names.  What the DB class is doing is:

There just isn’t a pattern that will match the table names only.  Not w/out some assumptions that we know aren’t universal in the 1.6 queries.  For now, it’s an ‘edge’ case where this crops up and can hopefully be handled by using an obscure prefix when a custom prefix is needed.

Make sense what’s going on and the limitations to addressing it?

> The problem is- there is no way to match just the table names.

Well, there would be. But I understand the convenience in only applying the regex to the finished query.

> For now, it’s an ‘edge’ case where this crops up and can hopefully be
> handled by using an obscure prefix when a custom prefix is needed.

Unfortunately that doesn’t help. The thing is, no matter what prefix I use I cannot publish articles that deal with EE queries without having my prefix applied to it. Which is of course confusing for the casual reader.

Well, I can of course do that, It’s just that having to use exp instead of plaintext feels kinda odd.

In the last sentence exp was &# 101;&# 120;&# 112;.

That said, that doesn’t work inside [ code ] - tags. Gnarf :-|