how come there's no "not equal" symbol I can use with omit instead of having to use ">" and then "<"
using = or no operator at all in an omit request would be the equivalent of "not equals".
It's not clear why the space would "break" the find. What possible values should that pattern match to so as to omit those records?
Instead of escaping the space, you might try one of these patterns:
The first will match if the first three letters start with xxx and the last three end in yyy.
The second will match only if there is a single letter of any type between xxx and yyy.
QUOTE: using = or no operator at all in an omit request would be the equivalent of "not equals".
That keeps things that are not matching, but I'm trying to remove things that are not matching.
Using "@" instead of a space didn't fix this.
If you set up an Omit request and enter "apple" in the field, you get all records that do not have apple in that field. This is functionally equivalent to using that "not equals" operator (that we don't have) in a regular (non omit) request.
thanks for your patience Phil. I can see that an Omit request when doing a Find would give you the "not equals" records. I'm starting with a subset of records and I'm trying to constrain the found set by omitting any that don't contain a specific field value.
Unless I'm not drinking enough coffee, this is very different, and I can't see a way to constrain without using two omit steps, one for ">" and one for "<", which works fine until there's a space in the value of the variable being used to define the omission, and then it fails.
If I'm being dumb, just ignore me.
In that case why use omit at all?
Lets say you have this data
omitting all records where this field does not contain "Fred" would be the same as:
Enter find mode
Set Field ["Fred"]
Constrain Found Set
"In that case why use omit at all?"
hmmm, that's a good question. If only I could think of a good answer.
Slaps forehead. Looks like I taught myself to always think in tems of omitting when constraining. Need to rewire my brain on this one.
Thank you Phil.