Re: CHAIN not found and subsequent READ - docs wrong?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Doug Davie <dougdavie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Maybe the proper wording should be:

*..the file specified in factor 2 must be repositioned (for example, by a
CHAIN or SETLL operation) before a subsequent read operation can be done *
*accurately **on that file....*

Or some other word that means you can do it, but the results may not be
what you expect.

Right. The manual is usually careful to point out such cases, and does
so in clinical, precise terminology. It doesn't say "you can't do a
[high or low indicator] LOOKUP on an array that isn't sorted", for
example. It says instead that the LOOKUP "can produce unexpected
results".

So the same should go for CHAIN. Whether folks want to call the docs
confusing, misleading, wrong, incomplete, or whatever, I definitely
consider this a doc bug.

John Y.