Re: v.db.update: any reason to keep both value and qcolumn parameter ?

On 30/09/08 16:44, Glynn Clements wrote:
> Markus Neteler wrote:
> 
>>> However, in its current version (since rev 23578), value is now adapted
>>> according to column type, which means that you cannot use column operations
>>> on varchar columns (e.g. concatenation).
>>>
>>> So, we should either:
>>>
>>> - change the doc to reflect that value should only be a nominal value, or
>> yes
>>
>>> - go back to the original, i.e. no qcolumn and no type checking for value,
>>> so that it's up to the user to use correct quoting
>> No - I don't find it obvious at all that "value" could be a column name.
>> qcolumn also exists in other commands AFAIK, to that's consistent.
> 
> Another option: add expression=, which is just used verbatim as the
> RHS of the assignment (you can already use qcolumn= this way, but its
> name and description makes that counter-intuitive).

That was what the original value= was for, admittedly with a bad choice 
of parameter name.

Moritz