On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:58:06PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Jesse Luehrs wrote: > >>> My concern is that the instance meta-object is actually associated with >>> the meta-class, not with the attribute meta-object so by pushing this in >>> here it will make things more confusing. >> >> The reasoning I had for thinking it was reasonable is that the >> meta-attribute already has get_value, set_value, etc, so I don't see why >> it shouldn't also control the inline versions of those. It would >> probably make things simpler for attributes that wanted to use a >> different slot configuration than we have by default. > > But isn't that what the meta-instance is for? > > It seems very confusing to allow both the meta-attr _and_ meta-instance > to mediate how slots are handled.
I was under the impression that it was intended for slots to be very low level storage units, and attributes could store their data in one or more instance slots, with arbitrary (unique) names. With the default attribute class, attributes have a single slot, but there shouldn't be anything preventing an attribute metaclass from storing data among several slots in the instance - in this case, set_value on the attribute might need different behavior than set_value on the instance, the first setting the logical value of the attribute and the second handling low level storage details. Is this correct? -doy
