Relax escaping requirement for closures in Async{Lock|Mutex}#781
Open
jamieQ wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
The closures do not actually escape within the method bodies, so drop `@escaping` from the parameters.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I was looking into why #696 was implemented, which was a fix for new warnings in the 6.4 compiler, and was confused why the diagnostic would be firing in the case it appeared to address. It turns out this was due to the
AsyncMutex.withLockmethod taking an escaping closure parameter. However, the closure does not actually escape, so we can undo that prior workaround and make the API slightly more general by dropping the@escapingattribute. The same reasoning applies toAsyncLockas well, so for consistency I applied the change there too.This does alter a public API though and I'm not sure what the source compatibility goals of this project are exactly, so let me know if you think that will be problematic.