>This is one function that needs much better documentation. Doesn't it also
>skip secret records?
i agree that many functions need improved docs (i have not yet unzipped the
3.1 docs, but it sounds like they're better, though).
however, if the return type of a function is Err, it should be very obvious
that you need to check for error returns. (it reminds me of the fine print
on certain items these days, such as "do not use this lawn mower to trim
your hedges. serious bodily injury may occur." you'd think some things
would go without saying, but not always so).
also, don't ALL functions ignore secret records if they are currently being
hidden?
