From bam@hamptons.com  Fri Feb 26 17:13:23 1999
Received: from mail.hamptons.com (mail.hamptons.com [204.141.112.204])
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA28886
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:13:19 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from bam@hamptons.com)
Received: from LOCALNAME ([204.141.112.120]) by mail.hamptons.com
	with SMTP (IPAD 2.06) id 3589800 ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:00:12 -0500
Message-ID: <36D6814B.11F5@hamptons.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:11:07 +0000
From: bam <bam@hamptons.com>
Organization: ABCD unlimited
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Walt Brainerd <walt@swcp.com>
CC: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1573)  (SC22WG5.1572) (SC22WG5.1571) ISO names for new characters in the Fortran 2000 character set
References: <199902252226.XAA23064@dkuug.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Walt Brainerd wrote:
> 
> Ugh! "Curly brackets"  ????
>   [ ] are brackets
>   { } are braces
> I guess this must not be accepted by the international community.

The above arcane terms (with which I've been familiar for a decade 
or two) is loved and understood only by those intimately involved 
in the standards activity that chose the terminology -- and usually
confuses or misleads mere mortals.  Therefore, for the rest of the 
world, especially students and novices, I always (try to) say:

	"square brackets"	for  "[" and "]"
	"curly braces"   	for  "{" and "}"

That way, I can communicate meaningfully with normal people,
whilst still supplying the politically-correct nomenclature
for those who might care [or flame].  (Sometimes, when it 
is necessary to be both clear and terse, I redundantly label 
the marks surrounding this sentence as "round parentheses".)

Regards to all, from formerly active but now only lurking,

bam
http://suffolk.li/bam/