# This Example Demonstrates the Seeming Inconsistencies in the Find **URL:** \ **Category:** Community Support\ **Tags:** kdb-and-q\ **Created:** [July 12, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://forum.kx.com/t/this-example-demonstrates-the-seeming-inconsistencies-in-the-find/10109 "2015-07-12T18:07:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![erik\_friis1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@erik\_friis1](https://forum.kx.com/u/erik_friis1)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://forum.kx.com/t/this-example-demonstrates-the-seeming-inconsistencies-in-the-find/10109/1 "2015-07-12T18:07:00Z")
I think this example shows at least what is not documented in the Borror book.  The operator changes its behavior depending on the first element of the right and left operands when they are general lists. I know that the operator is supposed to be atomic in the right operand when the left operand is a simple list but even that rules seems to have exceptions: q)0 1 2 ? (0; 1 2) 'type q)0 1 2 ? (::; 0; 1 2) 'type q)0 1 2 ? ((0; 1 2); 1 2) 'type q)0 1 2 ? (0 1; 2) 0 1 2 Here are the 4 cases with 2-item general lists as the operands q)(1 2; 3)?(3; 1 2) 2 q)(1 2; 3)?(1 2; 3) 0 1 q)(3; 1 2)?(1 2; 3) 2 2 0 q)(3; 1 2)?(3; 1 2) 0 1 Obviously the first item of a general list being atomic (recursively) or not bears on the results. Thanks for any insight/comments. ---
**Author:** ![erik\_friis1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@erik\_friis1](https://forum.kx.com/u/erik_friis1)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2015, 7:06am UTC](https://forum.kx.com/t/this-example-demonstrates-the-seeming-inconsistencies-in-the-find/10109/2 "2015-07-15T07:06:00Z")
I believe the following rules, if adopted, would greatly reduce the complexity of the domain of the find (?) operator and several others: Left operand is a simple list             Rightoperand is an atom or list (simple or nested)                         ?applied atom-wise to right operand   Left operand is a nested list             Rightoperand is an atom or list (simple or nested)                         ?applied item-wise to right operand With these rules I’ll provide the proposed (would be) results below: > q)0 1 2 ? (0; 1 2)  / would be (0; 1 2) > > 'type > > q)0 1 2 ? (::; 0; 1 2)  / would be (3; 0; 1 2) > > 'type > > q)0 1 2 ? ((0; 1 2); 1 2)  / would be ((0; 1 2); 1 2) > > 'type > > q)0 1 2 ? (0 1; 2)  / would be same (0 1; 2)  > > 0 1 > > 2 > > Here are the 4 cases with 2-item general lists as the operands > > q)(1 2; 3)?(3; 1 2)  / would be 1 0 > > 2 > > q)(1 2; 3)?(1 2; 3)  / would be same 0 1 > > 0 1 > > q)(3; 1 2)?(1 2; 3)  / would be 1 0 > > 2 2 > > 0 > > q)(3; 1 2)?(3; 1 2)  /would be same 0 1 > > 0 1