Errata from the final draft of R7RS. This list is unofficial.

- In Section 3.1 (Variables, syntactic keywords, and regions), the claim in paragraph 2 that all variable binding constructs can be explained in terms of lambda does not apply to top-level bindings.

- Section 7.1.5 (Transformers) doesn't make it clear that a top-level syntax-rules pattern must be a list pattern, not a vector pattern or an identifier pattern.

- In Section 6.3 (Booleans), the procedure boolean=? is defined to return #t if the arguments are all booleans and are either all #t or all #f. The words "are all booleans and" incorrectly suggest that the value is #f if at least one argument is not a boolean. In fact it is an error to apply boolean=? to non-booleans.

- In Section 4.1.2 (Literal expressions), the examples '# and # should be '#\a and #\a respectively.

- In section 7.1.1 (Lexical structure), the escape sequence \| is not shown as permitted in <string element>. The list in Section 6.7 shows that it is equivalent to |. Similarly, the escape sequences \" and \\ should be allowed in <symbol element>. This makes the same escape sequences valid in both strings and symbols.

- In Section 7.3 (Derived expression types), the syntax-rules definition of case is incorrect; the fourth syntax rule must be moved after the fifth to avoid an improper match against the fourth rule when => is present. Here is the correct version:

- In Section 7.1.1, the lexical rule <special initial> incorrectly omits @.

- Bibliographic reference ![13] should link to SRFI 4.

- In section 4.2.2, add "interleaving evaluations with assignments" to the definition of letrec*. Replace the meaningless example with this:

Note that evaluating (means '(3 (1 4))) returns three values: 8/3, 2.28942848510666 (approximately), and 36/19.

- In section 7.1.5, add <bytevector> to the alternatives for the <pattern datum> rule.

- Section 1.3.4 refers to "the initial environment" containing *, which is not true for programs. It should refer instead to "an environment containing the base library".

- An example in section 5.3.3 refers to integer-sqrt instead of exact-integer-sqrt.

- In section 4.3.1, the body of a let-syntax expression is said to contain "one or more definitions"; it should be "zero or more definitions".

- In section 6.6 for char-upcase/downcase/foldcase and 6.7 for string-upcase/downcase/foldcase the reader is referred to UAX #29, but it should be TR #44.

- In section 7.3, the definition of case-lambda should use letrec-syntax, not let-syntax.

- In section 4.3.2 (but not in 7.1.3), change <literal> to <pattern literal> to avoid confusion.

- In section 4.2.7 in the definition of guard, change the first reference to raise-continuable to raise. This was an editorial error that introduced an unwanted incompatibility with the R6RS definition. See ticket #431, which should have fixed this but didn't (mea culpa).

- In the first bullet of the "Incompatibilities with R6RS" section, for "have to be be" read "have to be".

- In numeric tower bullet of the "Incompatibilities with R6RS" section, for "but the R6RS procedures real-valued?, rational-valued?, and integer-valued? were not" read "but the semantics of the R6RS procedures real?, rational?, and integer? were not adopted. (Note that the R5RS/R7RS semantics are available in R6RS using real-valued?, rational-valued?, and integer-valued?)".

- From Richard Kelsey's R5RS errata: In the explanation of list-ref, for "fewer than
*k*elements", read "*k*or fewer elements". Thus, (list-ref '(x) 1) is an error.

- In Appendix B, for "All algebraic operations except / produce exact values given exact inputs" read "The algebraic operations +, -, *, and expt where the second argument is a non-negative integer) all produce exact values given exact inputs".

- In Appendix A, the (scheme r5rs) library should export syntax-rules, else, ..., => and _.

- In the definition of string-for-each, for "the elements of the
*lists*" read "the elements of the*strings*".

- The value of the example (real? 2.5+0.0i) in Section 6.2.6 is shown as #f, as in R6RS. This contradicts the prose explanation. No resolution of the conflict has been reached as yet.