RE: File modes facilities.

[Drew Adams]

    >     Yes, slightly.  But if your file name starts with / or ~
    >     (i.e. is an absolute file name, as is the default for `load-file'
    >     because of its default initial value) then the difference is
minimal.

    > I guess I still don't understand. I see this difference in completion
    > behavior - do you not?
    >   Go to a directory that is not in your load-path. M-x load-library
    >   will not complete the name of an Emacs-Lisp file in that
    >   directory... M-x load-file will complete its name.

    Which part of "starts with / or ~" don't you understand?

I didn't understand that you meant for the user to _type_ the absolute file
name. I thought you were somehow speaking of the default path used for
completion. Sorry.

Yes, if you type the directory explicitly and absolutely (no `../', `./',
`~/'), then `load-library' will complete in that directory.  My point was
that, without doing that, they complete differently - they use different
paths (directories).

It's like saying that we can do without the use of relative file names
(chic!), because one can always type an absolute file name - IIUC.

    > I see the default for `load-file' being an absolute file name
    > that is in the default-directory. I see it completing to any
    > file in that directory.  I don't see `load-library' doing that
    > at all - I see `load-library' completing only wrt the `load-path'.

    As I said, the initial value (empty string for load-library,
    default-directory for load-file) is the main difference.
    But if you type in the default directory manually in load-library the
    completion facilities will then work pretty much as they do in
    load-file.

Coming back to the initial suggestion by RMS of making `load-file' just an
alias to `load-library', I repeat my preference:

    I think it's good to have these two different kinds of completion
    (that is, two different commands), even though the aim in both
    cases is to load a Lisp file, and both will accept an absolute
    file name as argument.

IOW, `load-file' offers the convenience of using the `default-directory', by
default, and inputting a relative filename. Why give up that convenience?
Why make people type an absolute filename?

It's a lot easier to navigate a directory tree using relative file names
(with, e.g., `../' and `~/'). If the user's intent is to load a file, then
the `load-file' UI is made to order, and the `load-library' UI presents an
unnecessary obstacle (= entering an absolute name).  Imagine if you had no
`cd' command in shell, and had to type (even with completion, from `/') an
absolute path for each file name - that's what it would be like, IIUC.