Main goal of this request: When branching one codebase into another, procs should not allow the same proc to be redefined in multiple places. Right now, it's possible to have:


/object/child/proc/foo()

and

/object/child/foo()

defined in separate places and to function correctly. The redefined foo would have ..() call the previous foo. Which is a very bad idea unless it's a subclass of child, like /object/child/grandchild/foo. However, people insist on maintaining, as a feature, being able to fully override the default behaviour of any given proc without having to rename it or subclass the object. (See for example: https://github.com/Citadel-Station-13/Citadel-Station-13-RP/ pull/258#issuecomment-414237764 )


One proposal of how this might be done is to allow suffixing the proc keyword:


/object/child/proc/foo
Base

/object/child/proc!/foo
Number of exclamation marks determines how far up the proc is overridden. Forces coders to acknowledge already modularized code without it being unexpected behaviour. !!proc/foo for example would have ..() equal to proc!/foo

/object/child/proc./foo
An alternative to !, when ! is already used. If proc!/foo is used, use proc./foo. If proc./foo is already used, used, use two dots. Behaviour across dots is consistent, largest number of dots takes priority. Can subsequently be stacked with !. proc.!!/foo would ..() to proc.!/foo which would then go to proc./foo/ to proc/foo.

Examples of how higher-level reduction would happen:
.3 = ...
!3 = !!!
proc.. -> proc
proc!! -> proc! -> proc
proc..! -> proc.. -> proc
proc!.. -> proc! -> proc

And in a very rare situation where dots need to be stacked,
proc.3. -> proc... (or proc.3) -> proc
proc!.3. -> proc!... (or proc!.3) -> proc! -> proc


The dot and exclamation mark system primarily serves as a tree selection system. Exclamation marks dictate position zero, while dots any other position. This, in a tree of sub-codebases, allows any sub-codebase to directly specify which codebase's proc they intend to override, and thus which sequence ..() will call without being ambiguous.

This, however, assumes that a linear sequence of derived codebases will build up a tree one node at a time. If each derived codebase accepts all the codebases except the immediately precedent as unnecessary to touch, only exclamation marks should be used.