-shell works in the search box. +stratton does not work in the search box.
Same results for the "search"-field in Reports.
In Report you can "or" different types. "And"-ing them wouldn't make sense, since a Thought can only have one type.
Tags can be included. The way to do that is by clicking a tag in the "Types/Tags"-filter once, giving it a "+".
If you add a "plus" to multiple tags, it'll only show tags, that have all the those tags.
This is very confusing, since in formal logic, "+" would stand for "or" or less commonly for "xor".
It never stands for "and". However multiple plusses will result in an "and"-search.
If you click a tag again, it'll have a "-" and exclude everything having that tag.
There is no way to directly show all Thoughts having tag A and/or having tag B.
You have to click plus on tag A, add it all to Selection, click tag A twice again to make it neutral, click Tag B and add all those results to Selection.
Then paste that to an ad-hoc Thought or look at them in the Selection box.
So tag-filtering is very fiddly and inconvenient for making Boolean searches.
Regarding tag-search, the best way, I could think of after a couple of minutes.... would be to use three symbols.
∨ for or-ed tags, ∧ for and-ed tags, ¬ for excluded tags. (ya know, the unambiguous conventional ones, people understand)
Left-clicking on a tag would make it first ∨, then ∧, then blank again.
Right-clicking would add the ¬-symbol, so we can get support for nand and xor.
I think that should cover pretty much everyone's basic searching needs, when it comes to tags.
If this dialog would ever be keyboard accesible, left-click could be done via space and right-click by shift-space.
Actually I don't think doing nor and nand like that would work, for algebra reasons, I can't be bothered to check right now. So nvm that part.
But having and, or and not would already be much more powerful and intuitive...
Actually, it might also not be that intuitive, because of associativity and stuff?
Would have to rethink this.