Suggestion: raise an error if `\path` is used in `\pgfextra` without `\pgfinterruptpath`

[user202729]

As in the title.

Disadvantage is that it will incur an additional check i.e. runtime penalty. Advantage is that it will prevent inadvertent errors in the code which can save user/developer's time.

[muzimuzhi]

Or, in a more general way, execute \tikz@uninstallcommands and \tikz@installcommands at the beginning and ending of \pgfextra code, respectively? In this way, \path and other tikz commands used in \pgfextra code would take their definitions outside of tikzpicture. https://github.com/pgf-tikz/pgf/blob/12f17834c849a659b8829bbc9122bc459f585917/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/tikz.code.tex#L2558-L2566

Related to

• 1327

[muzimuzhi]

Or, in a more general way, execute \tikz@uninstallcommands and \tikz@installcommands at the beginning and ending of \pgfextra code, respectively?

Hmm, No. The suggested way would disable (at least make it harder) use of

\pgfextra{\pgfinterruptpath \path ...; \endpgfinterruptpath}

[hmenke]

This would break existing documents, therefore unfortunately rejected.

[user202729]

I think a document that issues \path without \pgfinterruptpath is buggy and should be fixed anyway.

Adding Tikz node in pgfextra triggers double drawing of containing path - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange (not exactly the same issue but related)

That said, we can just make it a warning. I see no harm (cf. pgfplots run in stable mode by default, but upgrading pgfplots may make the document issue an extra warning)