Timeline for Finding associations not having value Missing["Unmatched"] in a list of associations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2015 at 9:33 | comment | added | Albert Retey |
@MitchellKaplan: I just have addd the UnsameQ example for completeness (as comments should not be considered to be persistent). I think you should not change the acceptance, my answer is more for those readers who are interested in filtering out specific cases of Missing only and happen to find that question...
|
|
| Oct 16, 2015 at 21:24 | comment | added | Mitchell Kaplan | @AlbertRetey you're right, although in my particular case I really needed to see what was missing for whatever reason. However, I do agree with you that I could be misled as to what was actually happening with my data. Thanks! | |
| Oct 16, 2015 at 14:37 | comment | added | Albert Retey |
Although the OP accepted this, I think the version with UnsameQ would be a more correct answer to the question as it is formulated. Consider an entry which has "Factor" ->Missing["OtherReason"]. With MissingQ one would not see that in the result, with #Factor=!=Missing["Unmatched"] one would see it, and that would be what I understand the question asks for. So I think you probably should a) give an explict example for the UnsameQ variant also and b) explain the difference between the two...
|
|
| Oct 16, 2015 at 1:46 | vote | accept | Mitchell Kaplan | ||
| Oct 15, 2015 at 21:46 | history | answered | chuy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |