[swift-evolution] Making capturing semantics of local functions explicit

[Kelvin Ma]

i support this™

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:41 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> I got bit again by a sneaky memory leak concerning local functions and
> would like to discuss a small language change. I vaguely remember this
> being discussed in the past, but can’t find the thread (if anybody could
> point me to it, I’d appreciate it). Basically, here’s an example of the
> leak:
>
> class A {
>     func foo() {
>         func local() {
>             bar()
>         }
>
>         methodWithEscapingClosure { [unowned self] _ in
>             self.bar()
>             local() // this leaks because local captures self        }
>     }
>
>     func bar() {
>     }
> }
>
>
> Its sneaky because local’s capturing of self is not obvious if you’ve
> trained your brain to watch out for calls prefixed with self. I would
> suggest having the compiler force users to make self capturing explicit,
> the same way it does for closures:
>
> class A {
>     func foo() {
>         func local() {
>             bar() // error: Call to method ‘bar' in function ‘local' requires explicit 'self.' to make capture semantics explicit
>         }
>     	// ...
>     }
> }
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> David.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171025/bec02b5b/attachment.html>