[AccessD] AC2010-a pioneer with more arrows in the back...

What's the definition of a calculated column? If you go back to 
normalization basics, a computed column evaluates columns in the same table. 
The truth is, I never thought about evaluating one value, as in a Format(). 
I've always thought of these columns as performing some kind of mathematical 
operation on two or more values. I mean, that's the whole basis for shunning 
them as valid table values, right? But, maybe that's just because I never 
needed to use them that way.

But I do agree with the string thing -- if it's going to support string 
functions, it should support Format() -- that's inconsistent.


"There are those who would argue that adding calculated fields in a table 
violates rules of normalization, and in some cases, they are right. In some 
cases, it is worth breaking the rules: If you know that you will need the 
calculation in every object based on the table, if you know that the 
expression cannot change over time, or if having the calculation in the 
table would make your data clearer, then use the feature. You can always, as 
in Access 2003 or Access 2007, include calculations in queries, also. Doing 
so requires you to base all forms and reports on the query, instead of on 
the table?end-users may miss this important point, so if end-users are 
creating their own forms and reports, it is best to consider using 
calculated fields in tables.

Be aware that calculated fields cannot call user-defined functions, only 
built-in functions. In addition, you must supply all parameters for methods 
that you call, even if the parameters are optional.

If you use calculated fields, be aware that earlier versions of Access will 
be unable to open the table?verify that you will need the table only in 
Access 2010 before you use this new feature."

=======Interesting bit about the parameters. :(


Susan H.


> Sorry Susan...I agree with your Friday-lighten-it-thesis....
> But getting back to the matter: Too many undocumented restrictions on this
> "new feature".
> In fact, Stuart's expression should have been supported....as should have
> mine.
> Who's beta testing this "stuff" ?
> Poorly done. Period.