bug#38072: when `byte-compile-file' finds out that a file is `no-byte-compile', it ignores `load' parameter

[Stefan Kangas]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> FWIW, I find the "and load" feature to be a mistake: the function should
> return whether or not it successfully compiled the file, but shouldn't
> offer to load the result, since the callers can just as easily do
> it themselves (and then they can easily control what happens when
> compilation did not succeed).
> So, I'd suggest we deprecate that "feature" rather than try and decide
> which behavior is better.

It's pretty convenient when running interactively though.  I've tried
using `C-u M-x byte-compile-file' (instead of my usual eval-buffer) for
the last couple of days, and I kind of like getting both
byte-compilation and load-file in one command.

But if we do deprecate this, is there a better alternative that we can
point users to?  Should we just tell them to run two commands?