It is the same bug. The r7rs define-library expands to a r6rs library, which
expands to a guile module form that lacks support for multiple libraries. The
solution would probably include a non-trivial (but probably not very big)
change to guile's module system.
First you would have to save and restore the current module before and after a
module definition (maybe in save-module-excursion?). Then I would separate the
library form the guile library form (since that doesn't encapsulate the body),
by expanding it directly to the lower level module forms.
I might give it a shot.
--
Linus Björnstam
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 03:55, Sam Lee wrote:
> On 2021-12-01 11:00 +0100, Linus Björnstam wrote:
>> This is in line with the limitations of guile's R6RS implementation. I
>> think this is a long standing, low priority bug. It has to do with the
>> expansion of library (or define-library in this case) not properly
>> resetting the current module.
>>
>> In the manual there is a section called "R6RS incompatibilities" that
>> mentions this. Maybe an "R7RS incompatibilities" should be added.
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> There already exist a page in the manual about "Incompatibilities with
> the R7RS" [1]. Perhaps a paragraph similar to that found in the R6RS
> incompatibilities page should be added to the R7RS incompatibilities
> page. Something like this:
>
> "Multiple @code{define-library} forms in one file are not yet supported.
> This is because the expansion of @code{define-library} sets the current
> module, but does not restore it. This is a bug."
>
> [1]:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/R7RS-Incompatibilities.html
