<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="">Protocol requirements with default (no-op) implementations already satisfy that design goal, no?</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Chris, as we've discussed in a thread that I think got forked from this one:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes, they do technically, but it would be nice to both:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1) make it an obvious documented part of the signature, possibly including the default return value</div><div><br class=""></div><div>2) possibly make it less verbose by getting rid of the explicitly spelled out protocol extension</div><div><br class=""></div><div>A.</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>