> On 16 Mar 2016, at 19:37, Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What about “capture” as the keyword? This will require a new name for
>> capture lists, but it seems like it isn’t well named at the moment anyway if
>> it’s effectively copying values right now.
>>
>> I’m also curious about thoughts regarding making implicit capture opt-in by
>> default, vs the original proposals opt-out solution. Obviously this will
>> require a good solution to the capture lists to replace the functionality
>> and/or an attribute to opt-in to the current implicit behaviour, but I think
>> it’s safer for it to be opt-in rather than the default.
>
> I suspect that by far the most common use for capture lists is to declare
> [(weak|unowned) self]. I don't think we want to punish that use case.
capture could remain implicit for weak/unowned. Actually anything else for
weak/owned may actually be meaningless (if you create a weak reference to a new
copy of a value type then it’s just going to be nil I think, I could be
mistaken).
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
