
It seems like backward thinking to me. If you have to use UNDER with OF,
that means you're defining a type which includes the attributes of the
UNDER class as well as that of the OF class, and adding your own
attributes too. A brain dead form of multiple inheritance? I don't know
what they were thinking here.

 Stephan Szabo wrote:
 >
 > I'd say so, yes.  The OF <user-defined type> doesn't appear to be
optional
 > in
 > that part of the rule.
 >
 > > Do people interpret this syntax to mean that you can only have an
UNDER
 > > clause when using the OF <user-defined type> clause as well?
 > >
 > >
 > >          <table definition> ::=
 > >               CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name>
 > >                 <table contents source>
 > >                 [ ON COMMIT <table commit action> ROWS ]
 > >
 > >          <table contents source> ::=
 > >                 <table element list>
 > >               | OF <user-defined type>
 > >                   [ <subtable clause> ]
 > >                   [ <table element list> ]
 > >       <subtable clause> ::=
 > >               UNDER <supertable clause>

Thu, 25 May 2000 10:00:11 +1000
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
[Fwd: 97BA-B931-B61D : CONSULT from pgsql-hackers-oo (post) (fwd)]