[wlindley]

Isn't it odd to read "curly" braces? Every printed dictionary I have, up through the 1990s at least, says that braces are {these}, brackets are [these], and parentheses are (these). Saying "curly brace" is as redundant as saying "round parentheses." Yes, braces are curly, by definition.

At least that's how it always in American English, and ASCII. Apparently British English says more than [these] can be "brackets" and <these> were called "angle brackets" in the 1970s, but when did anyone in the computer industry ever start calling anything but {these} braces?

[digitalPhonix]

> At least that's how it always in American English

You already found the answer.

To me, all of ()[]{} (and depending on context <>) are “brackets” in the sense that they bracket whatever is between them. Then a brace is a single side of a bracket (ie. opening brace plus closing brace make a bracket).

So to distinguish between the different brackets/braces you use “round”, “square”, “curly” or “angled” respectively. And “round” is the default so you often skip specifying that.

That’s been the convention in programming and maths everywhere I’ve worked outside America (in English).

[7bees]

Curly braces are a very uncommon piece of punctuation outside of math and programming. If you picked a person at random, they will find "curly brace" (and indeed, "square bracket") much clearer and less ambiguous. Doubly so when accounting for variations between British and American English.

[1718627440]

Curly braces are a very uncommon piece of punctuation outside of math and programming.

They are used, but they do not occur in linear text, but as a way to group multiple lines or in an ornamental/page structuring way.

[piekvorst]

“Curly braces” reads like “the braces—curly ones.” Pointedly emphatic when you want to stress a particular aspect of a thing, much like “rational animals” instead of “humans.”