I think this is best illustrated with a capture list. You can capture the object, but it's not the default behavior.
final class Object {
var closure: () -> Object? = { nil }
}
@Test func test() {
do {
var object: Optional = Object()
object!.closure = { object }
weak var weakObject = object
object = nil
#expect(weakObject == nil)
}
do {
var object: Optional = Object()
object!.closure = { [object] in object }
weak var weakObject = object
object = nil
#expect(weakObject != nil)
}
}
Jessy
Users receive reputation points by contributing quality content to the forums.
Posts include post and replies published on the forums.
Post authors can mark replies as Accepted to indicate successful solutions.
Apple Developer Forums admins can mark replies as Apple Recommended to indicate an approved solution
Last seen
User for
Post
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
You are conflating the ideas of instances and metatypes. Is that sentence enough for you to solve the problem or do you need to know where to find links with relevant information?
I've seen this several times in the past year, including the past three days. Please stop doing this!
Because the App Store enforces uniqueness, I'm saying it's not intutive that we'd have to take another measure on top of that to make an attempt at uniqing. Did Apple just think it would be faster to come up with identifiers if they made this recommendation? It just looks like noise to me.