> On Feb. 26, 2016, 4:57 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> > Is there a reason this needs to be required as opposed to providing a sane
> > default (preferably matching current behavior)?
>
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> You are right, at the moment it would be possible to provide a default
> value
> On Feb. 26, 2016, 4:57 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> > Is there a reason this needs to be required as opposed to providing a sane
> > default (preferably matching current behavior)?
You are right, at the moment it would be possible to provide a default value
without loss of functionality.
The
