David A. Black wrote:
...
> So that's probably not a great idea in most cases.  Class 
> variables have their own quirks, though they're scheduled to 
> be a bit de-quirked in 2.0.

My understanding (not that my record in reading Matz 2.0
intention is anything I should be bragging about - not that
I mind, since I am feeling like a kid in a candy store:-)
was that Rite's class variables will behave like today's class
instance variables without the need of  ``class attribute
accessors''.

Personally I am actually in favor of getting ride of class variables
altogether and only use class attributes accessors + class instance
variables.

/Christoph