The readme says: lit only has two valid constructs: A macro definition: << ... >>= and a macro reference: << ... >> ...from my experience with other macro sys

The readme says: lit only has two valid constructs: A macro definition: << ... >>= and a macro reference: << ... >> ...from my experience with other macro systems, I assumed that a "macro reference" would be replaced with the content of the macro definition, leading the code-block to appear at the top (under the star macro) and also in the macro definition. I'm pleased to see that's not the case. I'd rather not have the "<< >>" syntax in the resulting HTML, because it's the syntax for Lit macros... if I'm writing a document in human language A to explain concept B in programming language C, that's already a lot of context, and requiring the reader to also be familiar with literate-programming-tool D is a drawback. Linking to macro definitions is definitely a useful feature, but I'd rather those links were distinguished with a CSS class so that I could define their location and appearance in the stylesheet, rather than giving them specific text and markup.