# Is this a bug of the Julia function "unique"?

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-this-a-bug-of-the-julia-function-unique/70141
**Category:** General Usage
**Tags:** question
**Created:** [October 21, 2021, 10:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-this-a-bug-of-the-julia-function-unique/70141 "2021-10-21T10:41:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 30

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![giordano](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/giordano/32/2166_2.png) [@giordano](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/giordano)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2021, 3:07pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-this-a-bug-of-the-julia-function-unique/70141/30 "2021-10-21T15:07:00Z")

</div>

> [@leon](#):
>
> The thing is that a lot of the time, such information is pulled from other sources, e.g., Matlab, etc., which uses NaN.

Can you sanitise the input and convert `NaN` to `missing`? Or are there some `NaN`s that aren’t missing values? Following what Matlab does because they can’t do better doesn’t seem a good argument.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-this-a-bug-of-the-julia-function-unique/70141)._