Something seems to have gone wrong in my last reply…
The e() example code should be:
[Field]=e({})

Hope it worked this time, otherwise I think this code is compiled into some wordpress tags or something :s

Hi again,

If you would for example do something like: [Field]-={‘val1′,’val2’}
You can simulate the same behaviour using set analysis within the e() function like this:
[Field]=e({})

Basically this will ‘soft-select’ (only for the current calculation) the values in [Field] and then only include all other [Field] values.
Off course this becomes really weird to read, but I’ve chosen this option in the past when more complex calculations and set analysis followed after the exclusion allowing me to keep using the standard syntax check function.

Hi Erwin, I would have thought that -= and E would give a different result. The first is not matching a specified values (or list of values), and the second is where a value is not selected in a specified field. I agree that the P() and E() functions were a very useful addition to Set Analysis syntax, particularly when used alongside data islands.

The e() function is recognized by the syntax check and thus allows you to correctly check the syntax after the exclusion compared to -= where everything after this will be ignored by the syntax check.

Both the p() and e() functions are pretty usefull and are well documented within the help function of QlikView desktop.

Thanks for the tip on Must_Include, this will prove usefull in a soon to be implementation!

Hi Cotiso,

Agreed, there are cases where the standard Include is useful. I have used it as a quick and dirty way to optionally insert code into a load script. This way when a QVW file is copied from a location without an include to one where there is it can behave differently. It doesn’t feel quite right to have an include that you are half expecting not to be there – but it is a quick and dirty way of having optional code.

I believe you are right for more than 90% of cases.
Still, here it is a possible reason to keep include as a secondary including option:

During some old times (when we didn’t know about must_include), after some big headaches when parts of the included script was not executed due to qvs naming changed or whatever, we added an error handling engine that was exiting the script once an included QVS was missing. But prior to that we were using an execute command line to send an alerting email to the qlik admins.

@ Steve & Barry

Thank you both for these great tips !

Hi Shilpan – thanks for your comment. I certainly have been updating a lot of my includes to use must_include now.

The case sensitivity is fine if you are consistent and tidy. I agree it can be a problem for some people though.