Re: Name column

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So? �There are lots of surprising things in SQL. �And *of course* the
>> only complaints come from people who didn't know about it, not from
>> satisfied users.

> I guess that's true, but is this behavior specified in or required by
> any SQL standard?  Are there other database products that also support
> this syntax?  Or is this just our own invention?

It's a holdover from PostQUEL, I think, but it's still useful.  I
observe that SQL:2008 has added a significantly-uglier-than-this feature
for computed columns, so there's certainly use cases out there.

> I think it's because it's counterintuitive.

From an object-oriented-programming standpoint it seems entirely
intuitive.  Many OOP languages minimize the notational difference
between members and methods of a class.
        regards, tom lane