That’s a very subtle way of admitting defeat, Adrian, in a discussion you yourself started.
astute pedem retulisti Adriane e disputatione in quam tu primus digredisti.
You asked for help with understanding brackets, not me. Some people have other agendas. Possibly, they want to try to show off. I admit the defeat of apparently not getting through. I regret that, but why should I respond with conviction to willful non sequiturs and deaf ears. At a certain point, one has to concede that all effort spent has been a waste of time. I’ll happily respond away to questions about latin, if I can. Possibly, you’re just having a laugh.
Tu non ego auxilium de uncinorum usu quaesivisti. Sunt ei qui agendas clandestinas sequuntur. Forsit, agunt ut se jactanter ostendent. Hoc detrimentum admitto: non perficio ut tu me audias (ut videtur). Id me paenitet. Cur autem auribus surdis argumentisque quae non sequantur serio repondeam. Venit tempus cum concedatur reiculam esse operam anteà impensam. Semper , si potero quaestiones de linguâ latinâ numerabo. Fortassè, per argumenta tua, jocaris et ludis.
Not I.
I asked about the use of chevrons, you’re the one who went pedantic on me and complained about the symbol; which is fine, but don’t blame me for responding. And cheer up. 
If you have forgotten, just raise your eyes.
Si oblivisceris, modò tolle oculos.
No, Adrian, I meant that you should have written “not I”, not “not me”. After all, I did ask you.
You asked for help. I gave you help. Then you said that I was pedantic and complaining about your use of “<>”. Is this a complaint?
Auxilium quaesivisti. Donavi. Tunc me ludimagistrum quaerulum vocavisti. Estne incusatio hoc:
“You did, not me” is everyday, informal parlance in English and in formal parlance, too. “You did, not me” is by far the more usual form in English, much more so than “You did, not I.” (See Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, p.461, §16.2.1[14]). You say I should not write that. Utter nonsense. And you say I’m a pedant? Repeat, please: “It is not me who is a pedant. It is I who am a pedant.”
Istud dictum anglicum cotidianè informaliter et formaliter dicitur. Sic non scribendum, dicis. Nugas! Et ego grammatista?
When the symbols differ, professional typesetters prefer to use the proper symbols. A professional publishing company would not print something with ’ for an apostrophe, or " for a quotation mark - they would use ’ and “ or ” respectively. The closing single quotation mark is identical in form and Unicode character to the apostrophe.
All human rules have exceptions, but this is indeed the rule and not the exception for professional writing. For unprofessional composition, such as posts on a web forum, it is far too much hassle for most, myself included, to use these symbols.
I was referring to the printed marks, not to legitimate substitutes for use on unfamiliar keyboards.
What do you mean, exactly? Apostrophes and closing single quotes are identical in form and digital real estate, whereas chevrons and greater than symbols are not. If there were two torrent Unicode designations for the apostrophe and single double quote, they would probably be used accordingly as a matter of principle, as there are always benefits in including as much data as possible, but at a visual level there would be no difference. I can tell a greater than symbol from a chevron, but context alone distinguishes between apostrophes and closing quotes.
Adrian said, arguing that chevrons should be visually different from inequalities, that a good typesetter would always choose different symbols for expressing different meanings. My point was simply that eodem ratione apostrophes indistinguishable from quotation marks would be unacceptable, and that we must therefore reject this principle. If apostrophes can be represented by the same symbol as quoatation marks, chevrons can be represented by the same symbol as inequalities. (As they are in traditional typography.)
Closing quotes have always been inverted commas as have apostrophes, but chevrons are not and never have been inequality symbols. They are represented by them in computing for convenience, but not, as you say, in traditional typography. What you are arguing is if these two glyphs are unique, then all glyphs should be unique. Non sequitur.
On a professionally printed page, apostrophes and closing quotes should be identical, and chevrons and inequality symbols should be different. There is nothing philosophically wrong with designating separate but identical symbols to apostrophes and quotes, but there is nothing typographically wrong with continuing to use one for both. There is, however, a visible difference between chevrons and inequality symbols, which does not enter into the apostrophe and quote comparison, that is professionally unacceptable when one or the other is required. It is this visible aspect, not the philosophical aspect that Adrian and I are referring to.
As has been said, this doesn’t matter so much for everyday computing, since we have easy access only to inequality symbols. But, by your line of reasoning, chevrons should be altogether merged with inequality symbols, and く (in the Japanese syllabary) may as well be merged with < because they look similar.
Adrian did not. Adrian was describing what occurs.
Id non dixit Adrianus. Descripsit quod occurrit.
Laurentius is arguing with himself.
Secum arguit Laurentius.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I challenge you to show me a picture from one book of exemplary typography printed before digital printing that uses different symbols.
I challenge you to put your question in a more appropriate forum, where you can also challenge people to demonstrate Unicode characters in particular fonts.
Te invito ut in alio foro aptiore roges, quo tu alios invites ut characteres Unicode quorumdam scripturae demonstrent.
Now you force me to make the same point as I did before: you arguably start an argument, and do not find it inappropriate for the forum until you are loosing it.
I can’t perform delicate search operations from my phone, but I can refer you to Wikipedia. Find angle brackets in the usage section, where it discusses the mathematical and linguistic uses of the punctuation, and specifically addresses the issue of replacing them with inequality symbols.