bug#66912: With `require', the byte compiler reports the wrong file for errors.

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> Dumping the backtrace is a kind of cop-out.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love backtraces, but I don't think we should
> blissfully throw backtraces at unsuspecting users (unlike Python, say).
> IOW, we should first work harder to provide better error messages.

OT, so ... sorry.

It just occurred to me that instead of just having
a Boolean `debug-on-error', which turns use of the
debugger on/off for an error, there might be a
third possibility: show an error message and let
you then decide whether to open the backtrace --
maybe click (or `RET') the error msg, or in some
other way make the choice.

IOW, we could perhaps prepare a backtrace buffer
without actually entering its recursive edit etc.
If a user doesn't ask to see/use it then it just
sits there (buried) as an unused buffer.

Or display of the error msg could allow for (1)
activating/entering the backtrace buffer, (2)
leaving it buried, or (3) deleting it.

No idea about implementation or reasonableness.
Just something that occurred to me.  Yes, first
priority should be a good error msg.  Yes, users
should be able to optionally open the debugger.
But could we maybe  give them that possibility
after showing the error msg?