Ah, I think I was unclear - I want to extend the lifetime into an escaping
closure, not just within a scope, and I was wondering what the minimal way is
to do that.
> On 30 Jun 2017, at 22:15, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 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
