Formula to check if any of a list of items is contained in the rows of a column

[#1]

JMP for Mac 

Version 17.2.0 (701896)

I have a column "Data" with rows of number_number like this:

1_3

3_7

6_5

...

I want to test this column to see if some of the rows contain values from a list of values and then flag or label the rows which do.

I know I could construct an elaborate formula like this:

If( :Die X_Y == "3_9" | :Die X_Y == "3_4",
	1,
	0
)

But that's very laborious for long lists of different values to check.  I'd like to just be able to paste a list of values to check for in a formula, delimited by a space or comma.  

I found the function "Contains Item."  It works fine for one item but the help entry doesn't offer any insight on how to construct the "list" option.  I tried this (specifying the optional delimiter as a space):

If( Contains Item( :Die X_Y, "3_4 3_9", " " ),
	"exclude",
	"not exclude"
)

and this:

If( Contains Item( :Data, "3_4,3_9", "," ),
	"exclude",
	"not exclude"
)

I understand the default delimiter is a comma but wanted to enforce to find anything that works.  Neither Contains Item function is returning the sought-for behavior (logical 1 if there is a match, 0 if not).  If there is a better function to use please advise.  

This is a generalized problem I'd like to be able to solve -- inspecting a column to find matches with long lists of items.  

Thanks

[#2]

the reading is: 3 arguments

1. x - a string of characters
2. 3 options:
   - item to search
   - a list of several items - does one of them match?
   - a pattern to search
3. optional argument: the delimiter to split x in words

---

@datanaut wrote:

So (to my simplistic reading) either x or the {list} could contain the words to be searched or the list of words to compare it with.  

---

-> yes.

 included a Column as in Jarmo's example 

---

For a column formula, this is always possible, along the idea:
For every row, JMP will take automatically the entry of the column in the respective row.
When you use Formula editor, you do this trick all the time - just without noting.

[#3]

A nice side effect:

This discussion made me think:
does Contains also increase the speed of Col .. aggregations?

And believe it or not - it does. wow, it does!!!!

https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/How-do-I-use-the-Col-Maximum-Formula-with-a-quot-where-quot... 

Any clue why the character comparison is SOOO slow?

[#4]

I wondered if deleting rows without selecting them is much faster:

dt << select rows(myRows) << delete rows();
dt << delete rows();

[actually, I wondered why the corresponding << exclude(myRows) is missing.]

So, here is another speed test:

Names Default to here(1);
get timing = Function( {myExpr},
	dt = New Table( "test", add rows( 10000000 ), New Column( "rnd", set each value( Random Integer( 1000 ) ) ) );
	myRows = Random Shuffle( Index( 1, N Rows() ) )[Index( 1, N Rows() / 2 )];
	t0 = HP Time();
	myExpr;
//print(n rows()); // same timing without this line
	If( N arg( myExpr ) > 2,
		Print( Char( Head( Arg( myExpr, 2 ) ) ) || " + " || Char( Head( Arg( myExpr, 3 ) ) ) ),
		Print( Char( Head( Arg( myExpr, 2 ) ) ) );
	);
	Print( Char( (HP Time() - t0) / 1000000 ) || " s\!n" );
	Close( dt, noSave );
);

get timing( Expr( dt << select rows( myRows ) << delete rows ) );

get timing( Expr( dt << delete rows( myRows ) ) );

get timing( Expr( dt << select rows( myRows ) << exclude( 1 ) ) );

Print("-------------");

get timing( Expr( dt << select where( :rnd > 500 ) ) );

get timing( Expr( dt << get rows where( :rnd > 500 ) ) );

get timing( Expr( myRows = Where( dt, :rnd > 500 ) ) );

Print("_____________");
	

So,  deleting rows without selecting them is just marginally faster.
-> no wonder there is no corresponding function for Exclude.

[#5]

by the way:

Print("_________");
Print("__X______");
Print("X________");

why?

[#6]

My guess is that Print is doing some parsing/evaluations as it is meant to be used for displaying values of arguments. And when you start -"variable" with two underscores it is considered hidden -> possibly some interaction with Print() to not make it leak those values.

[#7]

show("__");
myString="__";
show(myString);
show("_"|| "_");

__x="secret";
show(__x);
show(name Expr(__x));
show(Eval(__x));

a second layer of ulra-tight protection ; )