I always using [weak self]
in swift closure to prevent reference cycle.
Here is the code below, is it the correct way?
someTask(completion: {[weak self] (result) in
if self == nil {
return
}
//is it safe when reach here?
self!.xxx = yyy
self!.doLongTermWork()
self!.finish() //will crash when self is nil?
})
Weak self does not keep a strong hold on the instance. So when self.doLongTermWork()
, will self
be set to nil
again somewhere else?
Using [weak self] is only required within situations in which capturing self strongly would end up causing a retain cycle, for example when self is being captured within a closure that's also ultimately retained by that same object.
In Swift, [weak self] prevents closures from causing memory leaks in your application. This is because when you use [weak self], you tell the compiler to create a weak reference to self. In other words, the ARC can release self from memory when necessary.
Use a weak reference whenever it is valid for that reference to become nil at some point during its lifetime. Conversely, use an unowned reference when you know that the reference will never be nil once it has been set during initialization.
Closure ParametersInside the closure, (name: String) specifies that the closure accepts the String type parameter named. Notice that we have used in to separate closure parameter with body. Here, we have passed a string value "Delilah" to our closure. And finally, the statement inside the closure is executed.
Your pattern has race condition. If self
was deallocated at the exact same time as your completion handler closure was executing, it could crash. As a general rule, avoid using the !
forced unwrapping operator if you can.
I’d lean towards the guard
“early exit” pattern (reducing nested braces, making code easier to read). The standard Swift 4.2 solution is:
someTask { [weak self] result in
guard let self = self else { return }
self.xxx = yyy
self.doLongTermWork()
self.finish()
}
Before Swift 4.2, which implemented SE-0079, we would have to do something like:
someTask { [weak self] result in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.xxx = yyy
strongSelf.doLongTermWork()
strongSelf.finish()
}
You can see why we prefer the Swift 4.2 improvement, as this strongSelf
syntax is inelegant.
The other obvious alternative is just:
someTask { [weak self] result in
self?.xxx = yyy
self?.doLongTermWork()
self?.finish()
}
Sometimes you need the “weak self - strong self dance” (the first two alternatives), but it would not appear to be the case here. This is likely sufficient.
There are other scenarios/edge cases that one might contemplate, but these are the basic approaches.
You said:
someTask(completion: {[weak self] (result) in
if self == nil {
return
}
//is it safe when reach here?
self!.xxx = yyy
})
No! You have not retained self
, so in theory it might become nil
at any time during the execution of the closure. It probably won't, but "probably" is not good enough. And exclamation marks are always an invitation to crash.
Do the weak-strong dance, and do it correctly:
someTask(completion: {[weak self] (result) in
if let self = self { // or let `self` before Swift 4
// here, self is safe, because you made the reference strong again
self.xxx = yyy
}
})
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With