Why is indirect addressing hidden? This deserves proper visibility.

[ablas]

I came across something today that I honestly find unacceptable in the manufacturer’s documentation.
The most powerful feature of this PLC — indirect addressing using bracket notation, such as M[MD100] := I[MD100] — is buried inside a section about arrays, with no emphasis, no dedicated explanation, and no indication of its importance.

Thanks to this feature, I was able to implement indirect fault handling, dynamically iterate through inputs, and manage alarms without duplicating code. It transforms the programming model: scalable logic, cleaner structure, and far fewer lines of repetitive instructions.

It is a serious oversight that such a fundamental capability is not highlighted, documented clearly, or demonstrated with proper examples. Many programmers could go years without realizing it exists simply because it is hidden in a chapter where no one would expect to find the key to the most flexible part of the language.

The manufacturer should reconsider how this is presented.
If anyone here has never used indirect addressing, take a look — it is arguably the most powerful tool this PLC offers.

[ablas]

I know, E4 is restricted and you can't write the INPUT STATE TABLE; I agree that's only appropriate for "large" PLCs. Even so, it's the most valuable resource. In the attached PDF, I've included part of some past work, which I humbly believe can be considered a standard. The header states that it corresponds to a Bosch CL500.
Ya sé, E4 está capado y no se puede escribir la TABLA DE ESTADOS DE ENTRADAS, estoy de acuerdo de que eso solo es apropiado para PLCs “grandes”. Aun así, es el recurso más valioso. En el pdf adjunto, dejo parte de un trabajo de mi pasado, creo humildemente que se puede considerar como un estándar. En la cabecera dice que corresponde a un CL500 de Bosch.