[rucksack-devel] inherited slots

[Cyrus Harmon]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:43 PM, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> Cyrus Harmon <ch-rucksack at bobobeach.com> writes:
>
>> I just wanted to follow up any on this. Any further ideas as to
>> whether or not this is 1) a good idea and 2) possible?
>
> I'm not Arthur, but I thought there was a reason why doing that
> for inherited slots was nasty. Not that I can put my finger on it
> right now, so call it intuition.

Hmm... okay. The obvious motivation for this is that one could  
subclass an existing class with a rucksack metaclass and get a  
persistent version of existing data. I can see how this might give  
folks the heebie-jeebies, but it would be nice to better understand  
what's _wrong_ with this approach. As an alternative, perhaps a  
defclass option for inherited slots that _should_ be persistent would  
be nice, as opposed to having redefine every slot that should be  
persistent.

Cyrus