[swift-evolution] Making capturing semantics of local functions explicit
Karl Wagner
razielim at gmail.com
Thu Oct 26 06:27:22 CDT 2017
> On 25. Oct 2017, at 13:41, 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
Yes, this issue (and variants of it) have come up lots of times (https://www.google.de/search?q=nested+function+noescape+site:lists.swift.org <https://www.google.de/search?q=nested+function+noescape+site:lists.swift.org>)
There’s also SR-2274 (https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-2274 <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-2274>)
Personally, I consider it a bug and definitely support fixing it.
- Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171026/b75bfc69/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list