No. I wouldn't do that. You could list them in the implementation section of the class comment.
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 14:44, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So now in the image the remnants from the old DelayScheduler have been > cleaned up by making it abstract with several methods becoming > "subclassResponsibility". > > Would it be a reasonable practice to group these in a protocol "subclass > responsibility" to make it easier to determine what is needed for concrete > subclasses? Or maybe append "subclass responsibility" to the original > protocol of such methods? > > cheers -ben
