Just a reminder that the define-library language is not Scheme, and in particular, macro expansion can neither create a define-library nor can it create a clause or list of clauses. (Of course macro expansion is done in the *body* of a begin-clause, because that is Scheme.)
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 14:52 Uhr schrieb Jim Rees <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:02 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What do you exactly mean by "does not contaminate the local
>> environment"? That the hypothetical library body of, in this example,
>> (scheme list) does not see the bindings of (srfi 1)?
>
>
> Exactly. I wanted to isolate the effects of export-from and import from each other.
I would suggest merging this with `define-library-alias', which would
then become `define-library-composition'. What do you think?
In any case, this discussion shows that one shouldn't add extensions
to the module language lightly as the semantics can be surprising when
low-level macros and unhygiene is involved.