[plt-scheme] Semantics of let-syntax

I am wondering if the following behavior might be a bug in let-syntax:

  (let-syntax 
      ((test (syntax-rules ()
               ((test name) (define-syntax name
                              (syntax-rules ()
                                ((name) 'hello)))))))
    (test test1))
  
           ;==> begin (possibly implicit): no expression 
                after a sequence of internal definitions 
                in: ((test test1))

This behavior is different from the perhaps more reasonable (?) 
behavior of Chez, which accepts the above, after which we can
say

   (test1)   ;==> hello       (On Chez)   

Andre