Conversation
|
In principle I am on board with the idea, but e.g. the PGFPlotsX backend makes deliberate use of this as in it passes all extra keywords to the backend and they usually just work. |
|
We could just ignore this check for PGF plots, it could just support all of them. I understand that you might wanna add more tex there. |
|
Yeah, if we make the check use a predicate function, that could just return true in that case |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4861 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 89.77% 89.58% -0.19%
==========================================
Files 40 40
Lines 8780 8787 +7
==========================================
- Hits 7882 7872 -10
- Misses 898 915 +17 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Description
Consider a case from https://docs.juliaplots.org/stable/backends/#Fine-tuning
Upon mispelling of any kws it is interpretted as an extra_kw which leads to silent ignoring of kws:
just plots.
Now it outputs:
Granted this is a crutch as I just look over a list of predefined kws, but in principle this mechanism could be more sophisiticated per backend. What you think?