# How can I get double angle brackets, i.e. - << >>

I can create an angle bracket with the commands $\langle and \rangle$.

So if I want to say something like

IList<T>

I can achieve this with

IList $\langle T \rangle$


But I am unable to create double angled brackets. I am trying to say:

(Expression<Func<T, bool>>)

And I cannot get the two sets of angle brackets in place. Can anyone advise how I can get double angle brackets to work?

EDIT:

Actually, I just found that I can do the following to get double angle brackets:

$\llangle and \rrangle$


However, its still not possible to have two single left angle brackets followed by a double angle, which is what I need for the expression above.

-
\rangle\rangle works for me. What problem do you have? –  Konrad Rudolph Sep 5 '11 at 12:25
Better use the listings package, which provides both inline and block verbatim environments for code display. –  Svante Sep 5 '11 at 15:45
I was pondering whether {symbols} or {punctuation} is more appropriate. I decided for the former because I (a non-mathematician) have never heard of "punctuation" in mathematical context. –  doncherry Sep 5 '11 at 21:00

## migrated from stackoverflow.comSep 5 '11 at 20:04

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

The following works for me:

Expression$$\langle$$Func$$\langle$$T, bool$$\rangle\rangle$$


($$…$$ is the same as $…$ but the latter is deprecated in LaTeX.)

Notice that you probably want to define macros for this to make it more readable:

\newcommand*\template[1]{$$\langle$$#1$$\rangle$$}
…
Expression\template{Func\template{T, bool}}

-
Expression(\langle)Func(\langle)T, bool(\rangle\rangle) worked perfectly thanks! –  JMc Sep 5 '11 at 13:06
I disagree that $…$ is deprecated. The moment it is removed, if ever, is the moment I'm assigning catcode 3 to $ myself! – Andrey Vihrov Sep 5 '11 at 20:25 @Andrey Well, I’m merely referring what people from the LaTeX team (Joseph!) said. I’m however unable to find his original comment – you cannot search for those symbols. Either way, editors usually play nicer with $$…$$ since it’s easier to infer a lexical range from it and unless you’re editing a really math-heavy text it just makes more sense. – Konrad Rudolph Sep 5 '11 at 20:34 add comment Assuming you're annoyed by the white-spaces due to the fact that < and > are treated as binary operators, and not opening / closing delimiters, you can try the following: $(Expression\mathopen<Func\mathopen<T, bool\mathclose>\mathclose>)\$

-
If you just want a quick hack what about \verb|Expression<Func<T,bool>>|?