Suppose I begin a package: BeginPackage["MyPackage`"]; Before running this command in a fresh kernal, the context and path were: ContextPath->$Context > {"System\`", "Global\`"} -> "Global`" and afterward: > {"MyPackage\`", "System\`"} -> "MyPackage`" Now if I were to declare a function `Fun1`: Fun1::"usage" = "Fun1[]"; The context of Fun1 is obviously `Context[Fun1]`: > "MyPackage`" Now if I begin a subcontext inside this context: Begin["`Private`"]; Now my context and path are: > {"MyPackage\`", "System\`"} -> "MyPackage\`Private`" Now if I try to define a new function with the same name `Fun1` here in the subcontext: Fun1[arg_] := 1 + 1; It gets defined in "MyPackage\`" context whilst clearly the current context right now was "MyPackage\`Private\`". If I were to use a different name say `Fun2` here then it gets defined in the subcontext as expected: Fun2[arg_] := 1 + 2; Why is that? I am trying to understand the rules governing this. Does it mean if you are in a subcontext and there is a symbol with the same name existing in the outer context then the current context given by `$Context` is ignored if you define without using full context name? MyPackage`Private`Fun1[arg_] := 1 + 3; was the effect I was expecting. Is this rule general in terms of how deeply nested the current context is compared to where the symbol with the same name exists in the outer context? ------------------------- I have a second question regarding `Needs` second argument: Needs["MyPackage`",{"Package1`","Package2`"}] is this the same as: Needs["Package1`"]; Needs["Package2`"]; Needs["MyPackage`"]; or Needs["MyPackage`"]; Needs["Package1`"]; Needs["Package2`"]; Also are there any cases where in a multipackage paclet, these can produce different results, i.e. the order in which needs is called matters?