> > But you also say "neither does the manual".
> >
> > To me, the Emacs manual is (and has long been)
> > very clear about this.  Node `Lisp Libraries'
> > goes into it, pointing out explicitly which
> > files (*.el or *.elc) get loaded (priority)
> > by `load', `load-library', and `load-file'.
> 
> But none of that says anything about explicitly loading FOO.el.
> 
> > And that Emacs-manual text points to the more
> > detailed text in the Elisp manual, node `How
> > Programs Do Loading'.
> 
> Which again says nothing about explicitly loading FOO.el.

Sorry, but it's not clear to me what you're
talking about.

Stefan wrote this:

 >> If you want to load "the most efficient
 >> option available", then just don't specify
 >> any extension, and Emacs will load the
 >> `.el`, `.elc`, or `.eln` file according to
 >> what it finds.

To which I suggested that that be pointed out
explicitly.  And I parenthetically added that
this logic has long existed for *.el and *.elc.

To which you replied that none of the doc
strings says anything about it [the logic
behind that behavior].

None of that discussion said anything about
"explicitly loading FOO.el".

You've apparently (now, for the first time?)
interjected the fact that the doc that talks
about the logic behind which files get loaded
in priority doesn't cover explicitly loading
FOO.el - or at least that the doc strings
don't mention that.

If you think that needs to be mentioned in a
doc string, then please add it.  It's not
clear to me what point you're trying to make
here, sorry.  Again, my suggestions are "HTH".
___

[FWIW, I think the Elisp manual (`How Programs
 Do Loading') does speak about explicitly
 loading *.el - see the part about using `load'
 and "specifying the precise file name and
 using 't' for NOSUFFIX".

 (And the doc makes clear that `M-x load-file
 FOO.el' or (load-file "FOO.el") loads FOO.el.)

 But maybe you mean something altogether
 different by "explicitly loading FOO.el"?]