bug#43385: 27.1; Regression in `find-library'

[Drew Adams]

> > No, it shouldn't -- it should complete over library names, and the
> > library name is "mouse", not "mouse.el" or "mouse.elc".
> >
> > (Closing this bug report.)
> 
> I _really_ disagree.  The latter has always been the
> behavior, since Day One.
> 
> It allows you to load either the .el or the .elc, au
> choix, without needing to specify or even know where
> those are located.
> 
> You CAN just provide the base name, with no extension,
> which picks up one or the other, according to the
> well-documented lookup behavior.  That too is a feature.
> 
> But it's just as much a feature to be able to specify
> which one you want to load.  This is about LOADING.
> Loading Lisp code can involve loading source or
> byte-compiled code.  Users should be able to control
> which gets loaded, when both are available (in the
> `load-path').
> 
> All three, mouse, mouse.el, and mouse.elc, are library
> names - ways to refer to a library.  Interactively, the
> first is a shortcut for a complex lookup procedure to
> get to one of the others.
> 
> This is a definite step backward, an incompatible
> change - a regression that hurts users.  (And it's not
> even called out in NEWS as an intentional change.)
> 
> I can't believe that you would defend this as an
> improvement.  I've been able to specify which I want
> since 1985.

I spoke here of "loading", not "finding" the library.
Sorry, that was a mistake.  (And `find-library', unlike
`load-library', which I was thinking of there, didn't
exist in 1985.)

But it points out precisely the problem.  `load-library'
does NOT have this regression.  Your argument about the
library being only "mouse" clearly doesn't apply for
`load-library': you can do `M-x load-library mouse. TAB'
and you get the expected completions.

`find-library' should behave the same way, as it always
has, before this regression.  Please reconsider.  Thx.