3 ms·
I don't see how that's relevant. If a developer sets a pointer to point to a stack object then copying the pointer, whether manually or through a hypothetical
by geezerjay 8y ago
I don't see how that's relevant. If a developer sets a pointer to point to a stack object then copying the pointer, whether manually or through a hypothetical closure, doesn't change nor create the problem.
- naasking 8y agoThe problem is returning a closure that points to a stack variable that's now out of scope.
- geezerjay 8y agoIt isn't. The hypothetical problem was setting a pointer to a stack variable. That's a no-no from the start, and adding hypothetical closures to the mix changes nothing.
- samnardoni 8y agoHaving a pointer to a stack variable is fine, as long as the stack variable lives longer than the closure.
- naasking 8y agoRight, so your original claim about properly cleaning up is not the only problem with closures in C. There are quite a few hazards actually.
- geezerjay 8y ago> Right, so your original claim about properly cleaning up is not the only problem with closures in C. Your comment makes no sense. OP stated that your hypothetical problem isn't even a problem if the developer knows what he is doing, and your take from that is that there are more problems?
- naasking 8y agoThe original poster said the trouble was cleaning up after the closure is no longer needed. That's clearly not the case as this thread has covered. I thought the previous poster was the original poster, so just replace "your original claim" with "the original claim".