Of course, this 'works'.
But then it more-or-less defeats the point of having named variables you know- the convenience of having meaningful names of the thinnggys - which get a bit blurry when EVERYTHING is just [strVar(nn)].
Then too, the concept of just lumping everthing into a featureless morass of variants does not exactly provide the niciety of type checknig, so perhaps you could omit the option explicit statement and not use ANY declaration statements. This would save typing the 35 or so 'words' which create the featureless blob to begin with - increasing 'efficiency', decreasing the 'bloody finger' syndrome all while adding a great deal of mystery to the puzzle program.
Another consideration may be the 'bloody finger' syndrome, when you actually use the variables, as the use will (now) include the entry of the index (3 or 4 keystrokes) EVERY time you use it. So, it COULD be that the 'technique' is just an implementation of the 'pay-me-now or pay-me-later' syndrome.
In summary, my opinion is that the technique is really another example of a bad idea gone sadly awry. I -personally- have never suffered from the 'bloody finger' syndrome, but then (perhaps) the calluses from a year or more of actual programming has built up enough protection on my fingers to keep me safe through more than 70 declaration statements.
MichaelRed
m.red@att.net
There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over