This is my idea of an improvement to the documentation, but I doubt anyone would agree with me.
Nevertheless, here it is:
There are at least 4 commonly used characters used to group other constructs to clearly call attention to their meaning.
1. [] Brackets
2. {} Braces
3. () Parentheses
4. <> Less than/Greater than 

The problem I have with the way these symbols are spoken of (in writing as well as oral discourse) is the lack of consistent names for them.
Brackets are often referred to as square Brackets, even though there is apparently no alternative such as rectangular Brackets, etc.
Braces are often referred to as curly Braces or some times curly Brackets.
Parentheses are usually called, correctly, Parentheses, but also referred to as round Brackets. I've never encountered 'round Braces', but I'm hopeful.
Less then and Greater then symbols are referred to correctly when they are used in mathematics speak.
However, when they are used as a 'grouping' mechanism, they are usually called Angle Brackets -- not Angle Braces.
My proposal is this:
The most consistent way I can think of for referring to these 4 symbols when used as a 'grouping' mechanism is:
1. [] SQUARE BRACKETS
2. {} CURLY BRACKETS
3. () ROUND BRACKETS
4. <> ANGLE BRACKETS
There will be no more Braces, since that term is apparently quite unpopular with most programmers today.
The 'shape' modifiers (SQUARE, CURLY, ROUND, ANGLE), applied to the 
common term BRACKETS, would appear to be much more consistent than current usage.
I'm well aware of the difficulty in garnering support for this kind of an 'improvement', but I felt it needed said.

I don't think we would ever consider replacing "parentheses" with "round brackets".  Also, we have long talked about "curly braces" though the braces/brackets choice is a little loose.  Also note that greater-than or less-than have established usage (see the html entities or unicode code point name for example).

> I'm well aware of the difficulty in garnering support for 
> this kind of an 'improvement', but I felt it needed said.

I appreciate that.  Thanks for the suggestion, but we'll decline a wholesale search and replace mission.  If an individual case of known confusion arises, we can take a look at it, but for now we have no evidence that the current docs are causing confusion for end users.

Ray;
Thanks for the reply.
I understand very well, your remarks -- and, in fact, agree with them.
I think my aversion to chaotic terminology stems from my study of BNF and
the joy of reading RFCs.
I'll send in suggestions if I find actual errors or really confusing
explanations of concepts.
Thanks again.
Ray

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:19 AM Raymond Hettinger <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> I don't think we would ever consider replacing "parentheses" with "round
> brackets".  Also, we have long talked about "curly braces" though the
> braces/brackets choice is a little loose.  Also note that greater-than or
> less-than have established usage (see the html entities or unicode code
> point name for example).
>
> > I'm well aware of the difficulty in garnering support for
> > this kind of an 'improvement', but I felt it needed said.
>
> I appreciate that.  Thanks for the suggestion, but we'll decline a
> wholesale search and replace mission.  If an individual case of known
> confusion arises, we can take a look at it, but for now we have no evidence
> that the current docs are causing confusion for end users.
>
> ----------
> nosy: +rhettinger
> resolution:  -> rejected
> stage:  -> resolved
> status: open -> closed
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39402>
> _______________________________________
>