Hi,
> On 25 Oct 2017, at 6:01 pm, John McCall via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:41 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@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:
>
> I think this is a good idea. Ideally the proposal would also allow explicit
> capture lists in local functions.
Yes, please. Optionally allowing exhaustive capture lists would be great. I
think they work really well as compiler checked documentation too.
Sometimes a programmer makes sure that a given closure doesn't capture
something and maybe even adds a comment explaining that and why this might be
important. Still, it's fairly easy for another programmer to accidentally
capture something without even noticing. And given that we mostly review on
diffs with limited context it's even possible that this change slips though the
review as the comment doesn't necessarily appear in the review.
With optional exhaustive capture lists, this problem would go away because a) a
programmer is more likely to think about the consequences when changing the
capture list b) it's obvious in code review.
That's especially true if capture lists are optional because the mere fact that
there is a capture list suggests that the code might rely on the very captures
only.
-- Johannes
>
> John.
>
>>
>> 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@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
