

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

I was just wondering if anyone could think of a single word meaning the opposite of contains.


  • This bottle of beer contains alcohol whereas this one doesn't.

  • This bottle of beer doesn't contain alcohol whereas this one does.

Basically, I'm looking for a single word which means doesn't contain.

share|improve this question
Programmers try to avoid negative verbs in function names. The logic is something like this: NotContains implies two operations: 1) checking whether the object contains something, and 2) a boolean "not". If the caller needs to negate it, he will. IsEnabled is preferred to IsDisabled, and IsValid is preferred to IsInvalid as well. There are exceptions where the negative function name is fundamentally relevant to the operation, like IsBlacklisted. I would suggest you just stick with Contains(). – tenfour Mar 25 '11 at 15:58
up vote 2 down vote accepted

With regards to the programming context mentioned elsewhere, you can use terms such as "absent" or "missing" as in:

Assert.Absent( ... )

Assert.Missing( ... )

These seem highly likely to confuse whoever needs to read your code next, however, since no one will be searching for these terms. Contains is an extremely well adopted term for checking containers for objects. NotContains (from one of your comments) will at least match a query for "Contains".

In short: The terms exist but I wouldn't use them.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. I've actually gone with: IsContained and NotContained which to me seems to be slightly better grammar. – Nick Mar 25 '11 at 15:35

In some contexts, exclude might work: “the price excludes postage”. In general, no, I can't think of a single word meaning “does not contain”.

share|improve this answer

I think "lacks" is the word you seek.

This beer lacks alcohol.

share|improve this answer

Here are my suggestions:

  • This bottle of beer is devoid of alcohol.
  • This bottle of beer is alcohol-free.
share|improve this answer

Synonym.com offers no antonyms for 'contains'.

Even if you could find some esoteric term, what use would if be if so few could understand it? Besides, what is wrong with 'does not contain'?

share|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. It's actually for a function name in a computer program. I have a Contains( ) function and I wanted a simple opposite rather than DoesntContain( ). – Nick Mar 25 '11 at 11:20
@Nick: How about !Contains()? Am I missing something? (^_^) – RegDwigнt Mar 25 '11 at 11:31
A bit more context. It's an assertion checker so I have the functions: Assert.Contains( ... ) and Assert.NotContains( ... ) to check whether a container contains an item. – Nick Mar 25 '11 at 11:58
'NotContains' is my preference in that context. Clumsy English, but the meaning will be clear to any other developer. – CJM Mar 25 '11 at 13:59
@CLM As an other developer, that would not be clear to me mainly because it's an unusual English construct. !Contains() would work for me, or for Nick's purposes reformulating as Assert.IsTrue(!myCollection.Contains(...)); – Ed Guiness Mar 25 '11 at 14:04


Is the word often used when a container does not contain anything (the container is empty)

Contains() is a strange name for a function that returns a boolean (true or false), it could be short for containsSomething, or containsNothing and is therefore a little ambigous.


In that case you might want to try isMissing or omitted

share|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. I suppose I should have expanded it. It actually takes a container and a value returning true if the container contains the value. I.e. Contains( ICollection container, Object value ); – Nick Mar 25 '11 at 15:17
In that case Missing or Omitted might work okay (have updated my answer) – Tom Mar 25 '11 at 15:38


This beer contains alcohol, this other beer is void of alcohol.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


