Doug Way wrote:

> If we did have the no-overrides-in-PI-packages rule, you'd have to use 
> some other "patch" file format such as .cs or something else to handle 
> overrides.  These patches would not be unloadable, but PI packages 
> would be.  (Uh oh, is this sounding too reminiscent of DeltaModules? 
> ;-) )  Maybe this is too restrictive, but as a general rule, you could 
> argue that most packages should not be patching/overwriting other 
> packages.  Non-overwriting class extensions are a different thing and 
> are relatively harmless.  There are module systems that stick to this 
> rule, anyway.

I think the only reason we're suspicious of overrides is that we don't 
have very good tools to handle them.  Personally, what I'd actually like 
to see is something like the CLOS :around methods - so that Package A 
can modify the behavior of a method in Package B by introducing a new 
entity rather than replacing an existing one.

Anyone have any good ideas of how we could implement that?