TITLE: Why not include as a requirement that all functions must be continuous to be differentiable?
QUESTION [80 upvotes]: Theorem: Suppose that  $f : A \to \mathbb{R}$ where $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}$. If $f$ is differentiable at $x \in A$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$.

This theorem is equivalent (by the contrapositive) to the result that if $f$ is not continuous at $x \in A$ then $f$ is not differentiable at $x$. 
Why then do authors in almost every analysis book, not take continuity of $f$ as a requirement in the definition of the derivative of $f$ when we (seemingly) end up with equivalent results?
For example I don't see why this wouldn't be a good definition of the derivative of a function

Definition: Let $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ and let $f : A \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function continuous at $a$. Let $a \in \operatorname{Int}(A)$. We define the derivative of $f$ at $a$ to be $$f'(a) = \lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(a+t)-f(a)}{t}$$
  provided the limit exists.

I know this is probably a pedagogical issue, but why not take this instead as the definition of the derivative of a function?

REPLY [4 votes]: If we started to include consequences of definitions, in the definitions themselves, there's no telling where to stop.