http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4966
Bruno Medeiros <bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Bruno Medeiros <bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com> 2010-11-19 08:59:45 PST --- There is not just one variable 'v', there are several "instances" of variable 'v', each of them created on each iteration of the loop. Each of them is immutable during its lifecycle (and cease to exist after their lifecycle, by definition). The orthogonal solution is: * make each 'v' variable be heap-allocated (have unscoped lifecycle). This is consistent to how variables work in the top scope in functions. I'm starting to reconsider though, if closures should automatically make variables be heap-allocated. Maybe its best to require a keyword/annotation in such referenced variables, and make the code not compile if such keywords is not present. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 2043 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------