design by contract - Whats wrong with non nullable objects? -

I was recently watching DBC and the device # that supports non-faucetable items, unfortunately, the concept # to Has been abandoned.

1. Good language features were built in Tip # 1, so it was abandoned?
2. Is there a problem that does not allow all objects to be non-empty so that you have to type int? String? And even mail messages? If you really want a faucet worthy object?
3. I see a type of SQL analogy here where you can see the class properties as tapable or non-empty space. You can put the barriers on properties, such as with the SQL table column can do? Can anyone reveal me on this?

Have you noticed that new desires will be part of .NET 4.0?

The advantage of building a library instead of the language is that it is available immediately in all languages, not on any work of language teams.

P> After saying all this, I want to be able to write:

  public stream! Foo (String! X)  

Also, it shows that Fu should not get a blank reference, nor will he return one. This contract would be easy, because there is an extra bit of syntax for just , I think.