No it wouldn't; explicitness is required when general rules are broken by specific rules. (For example: Spellstrike needs to be explicitly said because normally touch attacks cannot be made with a melee weapon. Thus, it explicitly breaks the normal rules, allowing you to make a melee attack in place of a touch attack and deal melee damage instead of making the normal touch attack. That's why it's explicitly said.) Not requiring another attack as part of a touch spell is something that breaks the general rules for touch attack spells, and thus would need to be called out specifically. But we can wait and see what the experts on the forum say.