> On Jun 30, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mike Ferenduros <mike.ferendu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> With an empty body, you mean?
I'd say it's probably more readable to nest the code that's dependent on the
lifetime of the object in the block body, though you can just put
`withExtendedLifetime(x) { }` at the end of the region (or `defer {
withExtendedLifetime... }` at the beginning) if you can't have the nesting for
whatever reason.
-Joe
>> On 30 Jun 2017, at 22:00, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Mike Ferenduros via swift-users
>>> <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm doing a RAII sort of thing with an object, and would like to keep it
>>> alive until an completion-block is called (asynchronously).
>>>
>>> Is it sufficient to say '_ = x' in the completion-block to keep a live
>>> reference to the object?
>>>
>>> I was told that the optimiser is free to discard this line, and thus the
>>> object could be freed prematurely depending on how the code is compiled. If
>>> so, is there an idiomatic way to do this? Or should I just avoid RAII in
>>> Swift?
>>
>> `withExtendedLifetime(x) { ... }` is the supported way of extending the
>> lifetime of an object.
>>
>> -Joe
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
