Dear posterity,

The Scheme-Reports mailing list has been re-established. Thanks to Jonathan Rees for setting up the DNS. Alas, everyone will need to re-subscribe.

The archives are still missing about 40% of the emails of the original mailing list, but Simplelists is working on fixing it and importing the rest.

Also, the first R7RS Large fascicle is out today. From the announcement I’m posting elsewhere:

> The Working Group for R7RS Large is pleased to announce the immediate
> availability of the first draft specification for the R7RS Large
> Foundations, the Macrological Fascicle.
> <https://r7rs.org/large/fascicles/macro/1/>
>
> This part of the specification describes the macro system of R7RS
> Large, which is a refinement of that of the R6RS. New features include
> syntax parameters (a means of defining seemingly unhygienic macros)
> and identifier properties (a way to add additional semantics to any
> bound identifier). Criticisms of the R6RS have been addressed by
> providing a procedural interface to syntax object destructuring
> besides the syntactic syntax-case form, and by reformulating the
> non-normative part of the hygiene model. In addition, new macro
> features from R7RS small have been incorporated.
>
> The working group welcomes public comments either on the (newly
> re-established) Scheme-Reports mailing list or in our issue tracker on
> Codeberg. Comments may address any aspect of the fascicle. All public
> comments are subject to the Code of Conduct established for the
> working group.
> <https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/src/branch/main/CODEOFCONDUCT.txt>
>
> It is planned that six additional fascicles of comparable scope will
> follow over the next two years to define the core semantics of the
> R7RS Large language. The next fascicle will cover the familiar
> procedural programming forms such as lambda and the let family of
> syntactic forms. In addition, we intend to poll implementers and users
> of Scheme for their views on approaches to changes and additions to be
> made in R7RS Large.
>
> We look forward to hearing your views on this part of the
> specification.

Daphne