> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:41 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> 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.
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
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
