> -----Original Message-----
> > I could be wrong (I don't have a copy of the standard), but I don't
> > believe that the above syntax follows the standard. Let me know if
> > I'm wrong, but my understanding of the syntax would be more like:
> > SELECT * FROM t1 JOIN t2 ON (t1.i = t2.i);
> > with the same result set as you listed (t2.i isn't suppressed).
> > This would have a difference in approach from the above.
> If I wanted
> > to join on columns with different names I couldn't use your
> syntax (as
> > one example).
>
> The standard allows both syntaxes; USING is simpler to type, and ON is
> more general, as you point out.
>
> In fact, the standard is annoyingly helpful in allowing
> multiple ways to
> write the same query. Makes the parsing and parse tree transformation
> more complicated :(
Sorry for the extra work load, but hey that's cool.
> - Tom-DEJ
