From 72cabc77549b3fe5b8d99666d2123705bcaaa67a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lennart <lennart@fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 14:42:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] beispieldokument, URLs in latex.tex
---
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_0.tex | 41 ++++++++++++--------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_1.tex | 41 ++++++++++++--------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_2.tex | 40 +++++++++++--------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_3.tex | 36 ++++++++++-------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_4.tex | 36 ++++++++++-------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_5.tex | 43 +++++++++++----------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_6.tex | 43 +++++++++++----------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_7.tex | 43 +++++++++++----------
workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_8.tex | 36 +++++++++--------
workshops/latex/latex.tex | 1 +
10 files changed, 204 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_0.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_0.tex
index 5628fda..129dea0 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_0.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_0.tex
@@ -40,21 +40,30 @@ Na klar.
Im vorigen Unterabschnitt haben wir bemerkt, dass wir die Summe auffassen
können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion.
-Epilog
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher nicht im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-· Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
-
-· Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
-
-· Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
-
-· Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
-
-· Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
+Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike
+
+Most programs are too complicated - that is, more complex than they
+need to be to solve their problems efficiently. Why? Mostly
+it's because of bad design, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a big one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+
+You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+
+Measure. Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+
+Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ n is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if n does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+
+Fancy algorithms are buggier than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_1.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_1.tex
index fb7149a..b6550a5 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_1.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_1.tex
@@ -42,21 +42,30 @@ Na klar.
Im vorigen Unterabschnitt haben wir bemerkt, dass wir die Summe auffassen
können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion.
-Epilog
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-· Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
-
-· Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
-
-· Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
-
-· Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
-
-· Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
+Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike
+
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+
+\textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+
+\textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+
+\textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small}, and n
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ n is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if n does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+
+\textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_2.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_2.tex
index f5d930c..bf5f07f 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_2.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_2.tex
@@ -44,21 +44,29 @@ Ergebnis führt.
Im vorigen Unterabschnitt haben wir bemerkt, dass wir die Summe auffassen
können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion.
-\section*{Epilog}
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-· Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
-
-· Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
-
-· Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
-
-· Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
-
-· Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
+\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+
+\textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+
+\textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+
+\textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small}, and n
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ n is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if n does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+
+\textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_3.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_3.tex
index 0c12bbf..d059491 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_3.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_3.tex
@@ -46,19 +46,27 @@ Ergebnis führt.
Im vorigen Unterabschnitt haben wir bemerkt, dass wir die Summe auffassen
können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion.
-\section*{Epilog}
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-\begin{itemize}
- \item Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
- \item Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
- \item Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
- \item Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
- \item Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
-\end{itemize}
+\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item \textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small}, and n
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ n is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if n does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
+\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_4.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_4.tex
index 0cf7829..349fea8 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_4.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_4.tex
@@ -49,19 +49,27 @@ Ergebnis führt.
Im vorigen Unterabschnitt haben wir bemerkt, dass wir die Summe auffassen
können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion, $\zeta(-1) = -1/12$.
-\section*{Epilog}
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-\begin{itemize}
- \item Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
- \item Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
- \item Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
- \item Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)$^n$abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
- \item Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
-\end{itemize}
+\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item \textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when $n$ is small}, and $n$
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ $n$ is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if $n$ does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
+\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_5.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_5.tex
index f3ea6f5..c375690 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_5.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_5.tex
@@ -68,29 +68,30 @@ Tabelle 1: Wert der $n$-ten Partialsumme
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
-\section*{Epilog}
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-\begin{itemize}
- \item Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
- \item Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
- \item Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
- \item Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)$^n$abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
- \item Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
-\end{itemize}
-
-\vfill
-% Der Befehl vfill fügt einen vertikalen Abstand ein, der den übrigen Platz
-% ausfüllt
+\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item \textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when $n$ is small}, and $n$
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ $n$ is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if $n$ does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
+\end{enumerate}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ctanlion.eps}
\end{center}
-\vfill
-% die beiden Abstände werden gleichmäßig verteilt. Das Bild erscheint also in
-% der Mitte.
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_6.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_6.tex
index 03c78fc..bbf8953 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_6.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_6.tex
@@ -69,29 +69,30 @@ können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion, $\zeta(-1) = -1/12$.
\end{center}
\end{table}
-\section*{Epilog}
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-\begin{itemize}
- \item Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
- \item Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
- \item Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
- \item Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)$^n$abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
- \item Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
-\end{itemize}
-
-\vfill
-% Der Befehl vfill fügt einen vertikalen Abstand ein, der den übrigen Platz
-% ausfüllt
+\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item \textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when $n$ is small}, and $n$
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ $n$ is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if $n$ does get
+ big, use 2. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
+\end{enumerate}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ctanlion.eps}
\end{center}
-\vfill
-% die beiden Abstände werden gleichmäßig verteilt. Das Bild erscheint also in
-% der Mitte.
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_7.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_7.tex
index 22cfe4d..6185030 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_7.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_7.tex
@@ -72,29 +72,30 @@ können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion, $\zeta(-1) = -1/12$.
\end{center}
\end{table}
-\section*{Epilog}
-
-Dieser Teil soll nachher \textcolor{red}{nicht} im Inhaltsverzeichnis auftauchen, und
-erhält damit auch keine Nummer. \\
-Außerdem:
-
-\begin{itemize}
- \item Strukturierte Dokumente sind einfach mit \LaTeX.
- \item Makros machen einem das Leben leicht.
- \item Formeln -- und auch der ganze Rest -- sehen (noch nicht) toll aus.
- \item Referenzen auf alles mögliche, also (Unter)$^n$abschnitte,
- Gleichungen, Abbildungen, Tabellen, ... sind automatisch richtig.
- \item Eigentlich ist das alles gar nicht so schwierig.
-\end{itemize}
-
-\vfill
-% Der Befehl vfill fügt einen vertikalen Abstand ein, der den übrigen Platz
-% ausfüllt
+\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item \textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+ \item \label{measure}\textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when $n$ is small}, and $n$
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ $n$ is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if $n$ does get
+ big, use \ref{measure}. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
+\end{enumerate}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ctanlion.eps}
\end{center}
-\vfill
-% die beiden Abstände werden gleichmäßig verteilt. Das Bild erscheint also in
-% der Mitte.
\end{document}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_8.tex b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_8.tex
index 21c601f..87cde03 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_8.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/beispieldokument/zeta_8.tex
@@ -71,24 +71,26 @@ können als einen Grenzwert der Zetafunktion, $\riemann$.
\end{table}
\section*{Epilog -- Ein paar Programmiertipps von Rob Pike}
-Most programs are too complicated - that is, more complex than they need to be
-to solve their problems efficiently. Why? Mostly it's because of bad design,
-but I will skip that issue here because it's a big one. But programs are often
-complicated at the microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
+Most programs are too \textbf{complicated} - that is, more complex than they
+\textit{need} to be to solve their problems \textit{efficiently}. Why? Mostly
+it's because of \textbf{bad design}, but I will skip that issue here because
+it's a \textbf{\textcolor{red}{big}} one. But programs are often complicated at the
+microscopic level, and that is something I can address here.
\begin{enumerate}
- \item You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
- time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
- guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
- bottleneck is.
- \item Measure. Don't tune for speed until you've measured, and even then don't
- unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
- \item Fancy algorithms are slow when $n$ is small, and $n$ is usually small.
- Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that $n$ is frequently
- going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if $n$ does get big, use Rule 2
- first.) For example, binary trees are always faster than splay trees for
- workaday problems.
- \item Fancy algorithms are buggier than simple ones, and they're much harder to
- implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{You can't tell where a program is going to spend its
+ time.} Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second
+ guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the
+ bottleneck is.
+ \item \label{measure}\textcolor{red}{Measure.} Don't tune for speed until you've measured,
+ and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are slow when $n$ is small}, and $n$
+ is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that
+ $n$ is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if $n$ does get
+ big, use \ref{measure}. first.) For example, binary trees are always faster
+ than splay trees for workaday problems.
+ \item \textcolor{red}{Fancy algorithms are buggier} than simple ones, and
+ they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple
+ data structures.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ctanlion.eps}
diff --git a/workshops/latex/latex.tex b/workshops/latex/latex.tex
index 02aeaa9..57debcf 100644
--- a/workshops/latex/latex.tex
+++ b/workshops/latex/latex.tex
@@ -666,6 +666,7 @@
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{-6pt}
\end{center}
+ \structure{URLs:} \highlightRed{\textbackslash url}\verb+{http://fsmpi.eu/latex}+ \\
\structure{Besondere Zeichen}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bfseries\color{MidnightBlue}\%, "{}}: \texttt{\textbackslash\%}, \verb+"{}+
--
GitLab