> Dear Norman,
>
> The output of << and >> inside code chunks is not typewriter font.
Only in the presence of \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}.
I'm completely ignorant of this package and so don't even know whether
the behavior should be considered a bug. It looks as if maybe a
ligature is being intr
> The filter from the FAQ does not work. I had to use:
>
> noweave -filter 'sed "/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /s/_/_/g;/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> /s/_/_/g"'
>
> (apstrophes inside filter interacted with quoting inside noweave).
Urk! At some point I must have changed noweave without changing the
> I think we should ask Norman Ramsey about this "name mangling".
>
> Does it have a nice solution that would allow us to use
> the version(s) of noweb distributed by Debian?
Sounds like you guys have a local hack.
The underscore issue is a FAQ.
Norman
>
> On Tuesday, May 09, 2006 4:38 PM Norman Ramsey wrote:
> > ...
> > I'm afraid you can have 'simple and understandable' or
> > you can have 'precise'. You can't have both. The man
> > page represents the usual muddled compromis
> Unfortunately, the website http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/noweb/ is not
> very explicit about pointing to a nice documentation that describes the
> semantics of all the various situations where << and >> can appear
> (non-escaped) in a simple and understandable manner.
The definitive answe
> Hello, is somebody so familiar with the documentation of noweb, to point
> exactly at a place in the documentation that says something about what
> noweb SHOULD do if it sees
>
><>
>
> in either documentation or code chunk?
>
> The only place where I think it would be necessary
