No. That would totally bork an options menu as the button coding wouldn't necessarily match the message shown.
.
Ha ha, but then it really would be an array in the hands of a god. After all, only a theologian would dare speculate what it would do next - and then invoke another array to explain why things did not turn out as planned!
.
Seriously, though - I think that we're already using arrays. They're called
state arrays but
Microsoft later came along and called them "objects" and then called their elements "properties". Now, in
Papyrus, we call
state arrays "properties" - and I like to suppose that some people may actually take the time to wonder why all of this unnecessary linguistic maneuvering might be just a wee bit confusing for some of us. Meanwhile many of us (and I am certain I can at least speak for myself here) use all the dialect variations interchangeably.
.
Of course, the "moral of the story", to blatantly and mercilessly plagiarize countless black & white film-writers, is not to unnecessarily vary existing structures in a given language - which is exemplified by your explanation. Thank you.
.
And I have been following your contributions on this thread because I suspect they may be relevant to something I have in mind. For example, there are some books which really don't yield much until their second or third reading - usually when we are dealing with something we've never conceived of before or, of which, we have incorrect preconceptions. I think http://www.gamesas.com/user/663163-altdunmer/ has made the point on another thread that cultural preconceptions can also color our perspective. And so the book which does not yield its secrets immediately is certainly something to be expected, especially if it were written from a different cultural perspective than that of
Skyrim. So, thank you, http://www.gamesas.com/user/663163-altdunmer/ for getting this thread going.
.
And thank you, http://www.gamesas.com/user/408976-justinother/ for your ongoing assistance.