3 ms·
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 mea
by kjeetgill 8y 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?
- chrisseaton 8y ago> 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?