Gdtyjr

I'm writing a package that uses both changes (v3.1.2) and comment (v3.8), and I'd like to expose their functionality to consumers of my package without having to modify either one's interface.

The problem is that both changes.sty and comment.sty define comment. Hence

documentclassarticle
usepackagecomment
usepackagechanges
begindocumentenddocument

throws the error

Command comment already defined.

I understand this can be fixed using savesym by (essentially) modifying changes.sty's interface, e.g.

documentclassarticle
usepackagesavesym

usepackagechanges
savesymbolcomment % rename comment -> origcomment
usepackagecomment

begindocument
origcommentpdf comment using 'changes.sty'
begincomment
code comment using 'comment.sty'
endcomment
enddocument

Alternatively, comment.sty provides excludecomment for defining custom comment environments, e.g.

documentclassarticle
usepackagesavesym

usepackagecomment
savesymbolcomment
excludecommentmycomment
usepackagechanges

begindocument
commentpdf comment using 'changes.sty'
beginmycomment
code comment using 'comment.sty'
endmycomment
enddocument

but changes.sty breaks the default comment environment.

Is it possible to build a layer in my package which mediates between changes.sty's comment command and comment.sty's comment environment? The aim is to expose the original interface of each to a consumer of my package.

The two clashing definitions are as follows:

% changes.sty line 791
newcommandcomment[2][@empty]%
setkeysChanges@comment#1%
Changes@output%
comment%
Changes@comment@id%
%
%
#2%
changescommentname%
#2%

% comment.sty line 241
defexcludecomment
 #1messageExcluding comment '#1'%
 csargdef#1endgroup messageExcluding '#1' comment.%
 begingroup
 DefaultCutFileName defProcessCutFile%
 defThisComment####1ProcessComment#1%
 csargdefAfter#1CommentCloseAndInputCutFile endgroup
 CommentEndDef#1
% ...
% line 292
excludecommentcomment