There is a new v1.45.1 snapshot release. You can find out more and download the release for Windows or Mac at:
Please try it and let us know if you have any issues.
2 Likes
Wow! This is a really great and useful update. Renaming the columns, correlation, and the copy and paste options are really appreciated.
1 Like
RENAMING COLUMNS !!
COPY HEADER only
1 Like
Using IndexOf in the Calculate
If the value that you are looking for is an empty string then it still gives zero which is wrong it should return -1 or am I missing something?
Searching content value of column 4 in content value of column 1.
A what position does an empty string exist in a non-empty string is up there with “Does the set that contains all non-empty sets contain itsself?” and " What is the sound of one hand clapping?". ;0)
In Excel:
Find( “”, “xyz” ) returns 1 (1-based index)
Find( “xyz”, “” ) returns an empty cell
Find( “”, “” ) returns an empty cell
In Qt/C++:
QString( “xyz” ).indexOf( “” ) returns 0 (0-based index)
QString( “” ).indexOf( “xyz” ) returns -1
QString( “” ).indexOf( “” ) returns 0 (0-based index)
In Javascript:
“xyz”.indexOf( “” ) returns 0 (0-based index)
“”.indexOf( “xyz” ) returns -1 (0-based index)
“”.indexOf( “” ) returns 0 (0-based index)
So all 3 implementations agree that a non-empty string contains an empty string at the first position.
They also agree that an empty string does not contain a non-empty string (non-controversial).
But they differ on the philosophical question of whether an empty string contains an empty string.
The Filter transform considers that an empty string contains an empty string, so I am going to go with that.
So I think the current implemntation will stay, except that I will probably change from 0-based to 1-based, as it is more intuitive for non-programmers.
2 Likes
Learned something new, that empty string still gets the position.
From Excle. I used (Find(c2,a2)-1) so that index value is zero based.
| str | 2 | 3 | i1 | i2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 467…114… | 467 | 114 | 0 | 5 |
| …*… | * | 3 | 0 | |
| …35…633. | 35 | 633 | 2 | 6 |
| …#… | # | 6 | 0 | |
| 617*… | 617 | * | 0 | 3 |
| …+.58. | + | 58 | 5 | 7 |
| …592… | 592 | 2 | 0 | |
| …755. | 755 | 6 | 0 | |
| …$.*… | $ | * | 3 | 5 |
| .664.598… | 664 | 598 | 1 | 5 |
So that mean, I should check first the string I am trying to search is not null and then use it.
I think so. I will think about it a bit more.
I did some tests on the C++ lastIndexOf() method and:
QString( “xyz” ).lastIndexOf( “” ) returns 2 (0-based index)
QString( “” ).lastIndexOf( “xyz” ) returns -1
QString( “” ).lastIndexOf( “” ) returns -1
It seems strange that QString( “” ).indexOf( “” ) and QString( “” ).lastIndexOf( “” ) have different results! Hmmm.