> - routine sub_a is part of a module mod_a.

> - I now have a third module - with the same name "mod_a"...

> My question is:
> Is this a mere coincidence? Or is this actually supposed to work this
> way?

> Hello,
>
> My question requires a rather lengthy preparation:
>
> I have been experimenting a bit with wrapping a library, that is,
> I wanted to see if it is possible to place some other code between
> the library routines and the calling program without actually changing
> the source code of either.
>
> For instance:
>
> My program uses a routine sub_a. I want to see how sub_a is actually
> called (with what parameters) and what the results are. But I do not
> have the source code for it or I do not want to mess with it.
>
> The strategy I follow is:
>
> - routine sub_a is part of a module mod_a.
> - I write a routine sub_b (part of a module mod_b) that calls sub_a. ...

> Arjen Markus wrote:

>> - routine sub_a is part of a module mod_a.

> ...

>> - I now have a third module - with the same name "mod_a"...

>
> [and he made it work]
>

>> My question is:
>> Is this a mere coincidence? Or is this actually supposed to work this
>> way?

>
> No, and no. Those aren't two opposite choices.
>
> I would not say that it was a coincidence. It seems like a direct
> consequence of some possible implementation choices. No, I don't know
> the details of implementation that makes this work, but I'm quite
> willing to take your word for it that you managed to make it work with
> those compilers.
> ...

> Arjen Markus wrote:

>> Hello,

>

>> My question requires a rather lengthy preparation:

>

>> I have been experimenting a bit with wrapping a library, that is,
>> I wanted to see if it is possible to place some other code between
>> the library routines and the calling program without actually changing
>> the source code of either.

>

>> For instance:

>

>> My program uses a routine sub_a. I want to see how sub_a is actually
>> called (with what parameters) and what the results are. But I do not
>> have the source code for it or I do not want to mess with it.

>

>> The strategy I follow is:

>

>> - routine sub_a is part of a module mod_a. ...