<div dir="ltr">I strongly suggest against requiring the scope keyword. This would force you to move a method *out* of the scope if you also wanted to use it outside of the conforming extension, which seems needlessly punitive. <div><br></div><div>TJ</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent@architechies.com" target="_blank">brent@architechies.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> Would/Could the warning be silenced if `doSomething()` is called by one of the methods that do satisfy requirements? (I know that it is possible, is it reasonable?)<br>
<br>
</span>If the `scoped` proposal passes (note: I am still -1 on that proposal), that might be another criterion for permitting a non-conforming member in an extension.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Brent Royal-Gordon<br>
Architechies<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>