>> One thing I am curious about. If the handling of this has
>> changed in FB 2.0 what about column aliases? Will FB 2.0
>> finally accept column aliases in other clauses? eg:
>>
>> SELECT
>> T1.COL AS T1COL,
>> T2.COL
>> FROM TAB1 T1, TAB2 T2
>> WHERE T1COL = 0

> Nope. I just don't know anyone seriously interested to
> implement this. Personally, I wouldn't give it a high
> priority. BTW, is there anything else than Sybase which
> supports such a feature? Oracle allows column aliases in
> the ORDER BY clause only, and considering available ORDER
> BY <ordinal> this doesn't look as a very nice improvement.

I dont know of any systems that do it, but I still think it
would be a good idea. I've seen questions about column
aliases and their lack of relevance in SQL on the IBObjects
and other lists.

It strikes most new-comers, and some longer standing people
like myself, rather strange that SQL should be able to give
a column an alias and then never be able to use that alias
in the rest of the SQL statement.

Sort of like giving yourself an alias and then not answering
when someone calls you by that name. What was the point?

As for its priority... Well I can live without it (I must
be able to, I am using FB :-), even if I think the current
situation is rather silly. I mainly thought that it may
provide a way to keep the API the same and still support
your changes in regard to relation aliases.

--
Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing