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.

  • 2
    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
  • 1
    Why has this question turned into a stackoverflow.com -esque one? – marcellothearcane Jul 4 '17 at 13:35

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.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    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

I think "lacks" is the word you seek.

This beer lacks alcohol.

| improve this answer | |

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”.

| improve this answer | |

Here are my suggestions:

  • This bottle of beer is devoid of alcohol.
  • This bottle of beer is alcohol-free.
| 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'?

| 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
  • 3
    @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
  • 1
    '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
  • 2
    @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

| 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.

| improve this answer | |

Using a count() function and testing for zero:

bottle.count("alcohol") == 0



It is not only shorter (by one character) while producing a more general result, but also avoids boilerplate at the start of the function name which has to be typed before your editor can begin offering sensible choices.

You will say of course that counting all the alcohol molecules in a bottle to find out if it contains just one such molecule is rather a waste of time, but this means that you lack faith in your compiler to detect this optimization opportunity for you.

Conversely, if you possess a device that can individuate a single molecule of alcohol then it is time to give up programming and switch to extracting gold from seawater.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Welcome to English Language and Usage! I notice you have not completed the tour, which states that 'English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.' Your answer centers around coding, which is more appropriate for stackoverflow.com. Please keep it language-related! – marcellothearcane Jul 4 '17 at 13:38
  • 1
    This is a Programming answer, posted on an English site. In the early days of this site this sort of thing was tolerated, as it was a spinoff of a programming website, but these days this site is very language focussed. Your answer is hence not suitable today. – AndyT Jul 4 '17 at 13:40
  • Language, surely, without context is meaningless. Programming is a legitimate use of language, so why not discuss the use of language in this specific context? Alternatively, what language contexts would you permit to be discussed on this web site? Why are your choices better? – bbb bbb Jul 4 '17 at 15:10
  • Are we to suppose that programmers have no need to use the the English language in a "serious" or "enthusiastic" manner and should therefore be banned from discussing the application of English to their work? – bbb bbb Jul 4 '17 at 15:14

Please consider "contains no" as in:


as it is a common feature of diglossic languages to make new words by combining shorter words as in "football" or "television". I would mention the benefits of moving the boiler plate to the back if that were permissible.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.