what is the general attitude towards octave packages *shadowing*
built-in core functions?
An advantage is the un-definition upon package unloading.
A disadvantage is the necessary copy of the built-in help text to the
shadowing function definition.
The background of my question is the OCL package using its own octave
C++ data types (those inheriting octave_base_value, with the types
appended to the 'typeinfo' list; *not* interpreter classes which would
allow method overloading!) and octave version >= 4.4, where shadowing
seems an option (if not the only one).