It seems to me you are shooting while blindfolded.
I changed you code `let result = closure(n)` to `let result = closure(1)`.
I thought that should eliminate the error. It didn't. The compiler asked me
to change the whole code as below:
Why did you expect changing which argument to send the closure to make any
difference?
func mainFunction(closure: @escaping (Int) -> Int) -> Int {
Sure declaring the closure as escaping shuts up the compiler. At the cost
of having an escaping closure in a context where the closure is guaranteed
no to escape. My understanding of the distinction between escaping and non
escaping is it enables compiler optimisations (in the non escaping case)
that would not be possible in the general case. Therefore this
compiler-mandated change kills performance for nothing
So I think in `func closureDoubled(_ n: Int) -> Int`, the `closure` is
escaping other than non-escaping.
No. The closure is not escaping. At least as far as I can see. Can you
point out where it is escaping? Declaring a closure as escaping does not
make it so. It only *allows* it to escape.
Note that here, “escaping” means escaping the scope where it is declared,
i.e. the `mainFunction` function. Clearly, it does not.
The result is not calculated inside the function `closureDoubled`, it
was calculated at `return temp1+temp2`, that is what I think can explain
the behavior.
Where does this speculation comes from? It totally contradicts the story
that the source code tells. temp1 and temp2 and Int variables that are
local to `mainFunction `, while `result` is local to the nested function
`closureDoubled`. Unless you use of the word “result” does not refer to the
`result` variable. I apologise for the poor choice of variable names that
made possible this confusion.
I don't know why at first. It just like there were two ways to do the job,
you thought it worked in this way, but it chose the other way. Both ways
lead to the same result.
You lost me in that sentence. What do the pronouns refer to?
Then I changed your code to
yes you totally changed my code by adding a closure parameter to the
nested function, in which you passed the closure that was passed to the
outer function.
By doing so, however, you altered significantly my use case. This is
because the point of having a nested function, as opposed to a separate
function defined outside the outer function, is for the nested function to
capture the environment of its containing function.
Of course, this begs the question: this is semantically equivalent, so why
objecting to that? There are two answers to that question:
1- preventing a nested function from capturing a local closure is a
significant limitation which essentially demotes closure from the status of
first-class citizen. The artificial limitation of expressiveness in the
language is unwarranted and a serious flaw (if intended. I still believe
this is a bug)
2- A very common pattern for nested functions is to make recursive
algorithms more memory-efficient by forwarding the recursion to a nested
function whose parameters are only those values that change during the
recursion. Other values, such as the parameter you just added in your
change, if passed as parameters, will only waste stack space since they
will never change in the recursion. This will also degrade performance
slightly because the code will have to push this unchanging value to the
stack every time a recursive call is made.
Note that this was the context where I was bitten by the problem. Of
course, you could expect a smart compiler to recognise that is doesn’t have
to push unchanging parameter values onto the stack in recursive calls.
Similarly, there are smart compiler which recognise terminal recursion and
transform recursion into iteration. I even encountered in the past (Lisp)
compilers which automatically transformed simple cases of non-terminal
recursion into terminal-recursive versions (by adding an accumulator
parameter), followed by transformation into iterative code. I do not expect
typical compilers to do that (where “typical” is left undefined, but would
include GCC, Clang, Swift). This is why I tend to implement my recursive
calls in the way just described.
Everything works as expected now.
Expected, perhaps. As intended, certainly not.
So I think the reason is just because of `closure` was not define in `func
closureDoubled` in the first code snippet. It was defined outside, so it
was escaping. What do you think?
I think this explanation does not make sense to me. Maybe I am missing
something. Could you possibly detail what you mean?
Thank you very much for your attempts. It’s possible something is escaping
me (pun intended). But I still believe this is a bug in the compiler, if
not in the language.
Best regards.
Jean-Denis
On 10 Oct 2016, at 02:45, Zhao Xin <owenzx@gmail.com> wrote:
I changed you code `let result = closure(n)` to `let result = closure(1)`.
I thought that should eliminate the error. It didn't. The compiler asked me
to change the whole code as below:
func mainFunction(closure: @escaping (Int) -> Int) -> Int {
func closureDoubled(_ n: Int) -> Int {
let result = closure(1)
return 2*result
}
let temp1 = closure(1)
let temp2 = closureDoubled(1)
return temp1+temp2
}
So I think in `func closureDoubled(_ n: Int) -> Int`, the `closure` is
escaping other than non-escaping. The result is not calculated inside the
function `closureDoubled`, it was calculated at `return temp1+temp2`,
that is what I think can explain the behavior.
I don't know why at first. It just like there were two ways to do the job,
you thought it worked in this way, but it chose the other way. Both ways
lead to the same result.
Then I changed your code to
func mainFunction2(closure: (Int) -> Int) -> Int {
func closureDoubled(_ n: Int, closure2:(Int) -> Int) -> Int {
let result = closure2(1)
return 2*result
}
let temp1 = closure(1)
let temp2 = closureDoubled(1, closure2: closure)
return temp1+temp2
}
Everything works as expected now. So I think the reason is just because of
`closure` was not define in `func closureDoubled` in the first
code snippet. It was defined outside, so it was escaping. What do you think?
Zhaoxin
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Jean-Denis Muys via swift-users < > swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Here is a contrived reduction of my problem
func mainFunction(closure:(Int) -> Int) -> Int {
func closureDoubled(_ n: Int) -> Int {
let result = closure(n)
return 2*result
}
let temp1 = closure(1)
let temp2 = closureDoubled(1)
return temp1+temp2
}
The line "let result = closure(n)" is refused by the compiler with the
error message "declaration over non closing parameter may allow it to
escape".
First off, while I know what an escaping or a non-escaping closure is, I
find this error message utterly impossible to understand. To begin with,
the sentence "non closing parameter" is meaningless to me.
In any case, my main function is passed a non-escaping closure. I want to
call it from inside it, the compiler is ok with. I want also to call it
from a nested function, but the compiler disagrees.
I believe the compiler should not complain here. Did I miss anything?
Jean-Denis
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users