Functions with package protection

[Don]

Simon TRENY wrote:
> Sorry to dig up this old post, but I still don't understand why 'package' functions cannot be virtual? Is there a good reason for this? I can't see why we can't use polymorphism on 'package' functions!
> 
> Is there way to make it virtual without making it public? (e.g. a 'virtual' keyword?)
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon TRENY

As far as I can tell, 'package' is a buggy implementation of a broken 
concept.  It seems to be completely useless.