On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 02:33  AM, ducasse stephane wrote:

> I'm really sorry to see the level of the discussion
>
> I will never read your email anymore!!!
>
> Bye

Sad.

I haven't seen this sort of reply in a list of grown-ups for some time.  
Stephane's initial proposal was certainly written in at least as 
provocative a tone as was Richard's reply, but neither message was 
wholly out-of-line.  Certainly nothing that would rise to the level of 
justifying a form of censorship, private or otherwise, and to ignore 
substantive responses.

Whether due to a language barrier or not, Stephane must appreciate that 
the tone of his messages invite such scrutiny and the tone of responses 
such as Richard's.  While he may not have intended to provoke, the 
messages appeared provocative.  Perhaps this will help him to understand 
the tone of some of the responses.

Back to the merits, I share David's sense that {} is quite convenient, 
and would miss it.  Of course it isn't necessary, as Stephane observes.  
However, neither do I perceive Stephane's sense that they are 
fundamentally flawed, requiring that they be purged from the compiler.  
(On the other hand, Dijkstra fan that I am, I also missed losing the 
form of multiple assignment permitted in earlier images, using "{a. b. 
c} := {exp1. exp2. exp3}".)