These particular characters don't exist in the font I use in my terminal, so they appear as the empty block replacement character.
Perhaps « and » are viable? Though they may clash with some Rhombus work, they are at least far more likely to be supported by fonts.
I might prefer the escaped < though in spite of the comment about editors and Markdown: I use vim, and even the "plain" version is relatively readable.
The last alternative I can think of is to "escape" all <> pairs by surrounding them with backticks, since `#<void>` doesn't give Markdown any trouble (though getting the representation into code, as I did, is non-trivial 😄 ).
racket-langserver/documentation-parser.rkt
Line 173 in a1141f0
These particular characters don't exist in the font I use in my terminal, so they appear as the empty block replacement character.
Perhaps
«and»are viable? Though they may clash with some Rhombus work, they are at least far more likely to be supported by fonts.I might prefer the escaped
<though in spite of the comment about editors and Markdown: I use vim, and even the "plain" version is relatively readable.The last alternative I can think of is to "escape" all
<>pairs by surrounding them with backticks, since`#<void>`doesn't give Markdown any trouble (though getting the representation intocode, as I did, is non-trivial 😄 ).