TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I want to create a note about PSTricks and I need macros to typeset syntax in more conventional way that is adopted by most computer scientists. For example, I need a pair of > and < but they must be slimmer than the usual ones. Here I used \guillemotright and \guillemotleft as I could not find the better ones.

Here is my MWE, could you help me to accomplish my objective? Best practice is also welcome!

enter image description here


\def\guillemetright{\guillemotright}% from now on we must hide the wrong terms.
\def\guillemetleft{\guillemotleft}% from now on we must hide the wrong terms.

\def\gr{\guillemetright}%I need a single > but not as big as the usual >.
\def\gl{\guillemetleft}%I need a single < but not as big as the usual <.

\newcommand\com[1]{\textbf{\textbackslash #1}}



\noindent will project orthogonally the point $P_i$ on the line $\overline{AB}$. 

Note: \man (mandatory) in red, \opt (optional) in blue, \com (command) in black.

share|improve this question
If you are doing this often, then you might want to look at something like the listings package to automate the highlighting of different portions. – Peter Grill Mar 15 '12 at 15:45
@PeterGrill: If you have time, please give me an example. I haven't elaborated the listing thoroughly. I will compare and might use your suggestion. – kiss my armpit Mar 15 '12 at 15:47
up vote 4 down vote accepted

You're looking for \langle and \rangle:


With it you get, from


the following result

enter image description here

The alternative version using


doesn't seem as good

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
Is there a single guillemot explained here in LaTeX ? – kiss my armpit Mar 15 '12 at 10:18
Yes, there is. But the result is not good, IMO. I'll add it for comparison. – egreg Mar 15 '12 at 10:20
The main brackets look clearer when using single guillemots I think. Thank you. – kiss my armpit Mar 15 '12 at 10:29
@DamienWalters: you can always make them \bigl[ ... \bigr], this should help. – mbork Mar 15 '12 at 12:24
@DamienWalters -- please don't call them "guillemots". (yes, i know, adobe got it wrong; acknowledged, according to wikipedia, in the 3rd edition of the postscript language reference manual, p.783, character set endnote 3.) guillemots are small black sea birds. the correct term is "guillemets". – barbara beeton Mar 15 '12 at 13:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.