|
|
|
|
|
|
by kjeetgill
2685 days ago
|
|
|
Yea, that seems frightening. I like to think of my local variables as my inaccessible local state. I'd imagine it keeps my JIT happy too. What would it even mean to have a lambda reference to a variable who's stack frame has already popped? |
|
|
That bit is simple - the variable is kept alive as long as there is still a lambda that references it.
Don’t think about stacks - that’s an implementation detail and the compiler is free to use a combination of the stack and the heap to implement local variables.
The issue I’m talking about is if one thread writes a local and another reads it, what does that look like?