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}".)