ducasse wrote:

>> I suppose you could handle that by having a rule such as:  A method 
>> is considered as "belonging" to only the PackageInfo package in which 
>> is was first defined.  If another package overwrites the method, it's 
>> still considered as belonging to the first package.  This might have 
>> some bad effects, but it might be workable.
>
> I do not really see why you need that rule. What is the semantics of 
> the unload that you want
> because if I load P2>>C>>m and it overrides P1>>C>>m then when you 
> unload P2 you should have P1>>C>>m back.

Yes, this is what Monticello does.