So why can I even Dim both in the second example?
the first example fails to allow me to DIM T.a after T as test but, the second lets me Dim T as test after T.a. Should it not fail on both variants due to T already being defined; Error: "Name already in use"? I guess I'm wondering why it just wont treat it as its own entity.
now if I didn't use TYPE i could DIM t.n as byte and then DIM t.a(40) as _byte. Which makes me wonder whats different about the TYPE setup that doesn't allow it.
I was really trying to get array added to user types back in 2013 and there was talk, I won't say a promise, of getting it in there some time in the future at the time. But that's old history now and less and less likely with developments late last year.
as for just DIMing T(40) as test. Yes I know that, you know I've been around long enough for that much.
and in this testing it would not an issue but, say if the type consist of thousands or hundreds of thousands variables(attributes if you like), absurd I know but not impossible , and say 2 or 3% needed 10000 count arrays DIMing the whole type as an array with 10000 elements would waste a monstrous amount of memory.
Ways around it? Yeah sure there is, but being a lazy minimalist programmer I'd rather just have the simplicity and ease of using arrays straight in the TYPE definition.
I know array in type is probably just whipping a dead dog at this point but I want to keep the desire for it alive and known so just maybe, just possibly if somebody has the ability to add it to QB64 it could get in there. Not just for me(though in my greedy little mind yeah just me) but for several others around here that have been wanting it for years.