Accessing field of out of scope class instance
Let's consider this class:
public class A<T>
{
private bool _flag;
public Func<T> Function { get; set; } = () => {_flag = true; return _flag; }
}
Now, let's imagine that the Function property somehow accesses the _flag field with both read and write in its body. Then if I use the class A like this:
public Func<T> SomeFunction()
{
var instance = new A();
return instance.Function;
}
My question is what really happens, because I have originally assumed the instance would be disposed by GC when the SomeFunctions returns, which would mean the _flag would cease to exist and the Function would try to access nonexistent field when eventually called from somewhere, but that isn't what happens. The code seems to work. Is the field somehow preserved in a closure?
Thanks for clarification.
c# scope garbage-collection closures
add a comment |
Let's consider this class:
public class A<T>
{
private bool _flag;
public Func<T> Function { get; set; } = () => {_flag = true; return _flag; }
}
Now, let's imagine that the Function property somehow accesses the _flag field with both read and write in its body. Then if I use the class A like this:
public Func<T> SomeFunction()
{
var instance = new A();
return instance.Function;
}
My question is what really happens, because I have originally assumed the instance would be disposed by GC when the SomeFunctions returns, which would mean the _flag would cease to exist and the Function would try to access nonexistent field when eventually called from somewhere, but that isn't what happens. The code seems to work. Is the field somehow preserved in a closure?
Thanks for clarification.
c# scope garbage-collection closures
Even not to mention the private modifier, how can a function access an instance member of a class unless it has an access to the instance itself (by parameter, closure or other class member, etc.) ? Obviously in that case it will have nothing to do with the instance created byvar instance = new A();
in your example.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:10
@DmytroMukalov I edited the A class for more clarity :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
In that case the instance will be retained as it's referenced by other object. It's not C++, an object is subject of GC not when it leaves the scope but rather when nobody else references it.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:36
add a comment |
Let's consider this class:
public class A<T>
{
private bool _flag;
public Func<T> Function { get; set; } = () => {_flag = true; return _flag; }
}
Now, let's imagine that the Function property somehow accesses the _flag field with both read and write in its body. Then if I use the class A like this:
public Func<T> SomeFunction()
{
var instance = new A();
return instance.Function;
}
My question is what really happens, because I have originally assumed the instance would be disposed by GC when the SomeFunctions returns, which would mean the _flag would cease to exist and the Function would try to access nonexistent field when eventually called from somewhere, but that isn't what happens. The code seems to work. Is the field somehow preserved in a closure?
Thanks for clarification.
c# scope garbage-collection closures
Let's consider this class:
public class A<T>
{
private bool _flag;
public Func<T> Function { get; set; } = () => {_flag = true; return _flag; }
}
Now, let's imagine that the Function property somehow accesses the _flag field with both read and write in its body. Then if I use the class A like this:
public Func<T> SomeFunction()
{
var instance = new A();
return instance.Function;
}
My question is what really happens, because I have originally assumed the instance would be disposed by GC when the SomeFunctions returns, which would mean the _flag would cease to exist and the Function would try to access nonexistent field when eventually called from somewhere, but that isn't what happens. The code seems to work. Is the field somehow preserved in a closure?
Thanks for clarification.
c# scope garbage-collection closures
c# scope garbage-collection closures
edited Nov 21 '18 at 13:20
Tedd Parsile
asked Nov 21 '18 at 12:40
Tedd ParsileTedd Parsile
4017
4017
Even not to mention the private modifier, how can a function access an instance member of a class unless it has an access to the instance itself (by parameter, closure or other class member, etc.) ? Obviously in that case it will have nothing to do with the instance created byvar instance = new A();
in your example.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:10
@DmytroMukalov I edited the A class for more clarity :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
In that case the instance will be retained as it's referenced by other object. It's not C++, an object is subject of GC not when it leaves the scope but rather when nobody else references it.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:36
add a comment |
Even not to mention the private modifier, how can a function access an instance member of a class unless it has an access to the instance itself (by parameter, closure or other class member, etc.) ? Obviously in that case it will have nothing to do with the instance created byvar instance = new A();
in your example.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:10
@DmytroMukalov I edited the A class for more clarity :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
In that case the instance will be retained as it's referenced by other object. It's not C++, an object is subject of GC not when it leaves the scope but rather when nobody else references it.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:36
Even not to mention the private modifier, how can a function access an instance member of a class unless it has an access to the instance itself (by parameter, closure or other class member, etc.) ? Obviously in that case it will have nothing to do with the instance created by
var instance = new A();
in your example.– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:10
Even not to mention the private modifier, how can a function access an instance member of a class unless it has an access to the instance itself (by parameter, closure or other class member, etc.) ? Obviously in that case it will have nothing to do with the instance created by
var instance = new A();
in your example.– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:10
@DmytroMukalov I edited the A class for more clarity :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
@DmytroMukalov I edited the A class for more clarity :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
In that case the instance will be retained as it's referenced by other object. It's not C++, an object is subject of GC not when it leaves the scope but rather when nobody else references it.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:36
In that case the instance will be retained as it's referenced by other object. It's not C++, an object is subject of GC not when it leaves the scope but rather when nobody else references it.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:36
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In the interest of simplicity, I will use a Dummy
class (instead of your generic A
):
class Dummy
{
public int i = 0;
~Dummy()
{
Console.WriteLine("~Dummy --> " + i);
}
}
Note the finalizer, which allows us to see the exact time at which it will be collected by the GC.
Now, consider this helper function: it creates a new Dummy d
, then wraps it in a function closure and returns that closure.
static Func<int> MakeFunc()
{
Dummy d = new Dummy();
Func<int> f = () => {
d.i++;
Console.WriteLine("Func invoked, d.i is now " + d.i);
return d.i;
};
return f;
}
We can call it like this:
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("1");
Func<int> f = MakeFunc();
f();
Console.WriteLine("2");
Output:
1
Func invoked, d.i is now 1
2
We can force a garbage collection cycle:
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("3");
Output:
3
Note how we still haven't seen the finalizer running! The Dummy
object is still alive, being held by the function closure.
In fact, we can continue to call the function:
f();
Console.WriteLine("4");
Output:
Func invoked, d.i is now 2
4
That Dummy
instance will be finalized when we drop the reference and force another garbage collection cycle:
f = null;
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("5");
Output:
~Dummy --> 2
5
P.S.: Here I am using GC.Collect()
for demonstration purposes. It's generally unnecessary (and inadvisable) to call it like this in production code.
add a comment |
The GC will not remove the instance if there are still references to it. And a Func<> containing a reference to a field will hold a reference to the object (closure).
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53412238%2faccessing-field-of-out-of-scope-class-instance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In the interest of simplicity, I will use a Dummy
class (instead of your generic A
):
class Dummy
{
public int i = 0;
~Dummy()
{
Console.WriteLine("~Dummy --> " + i);
}
}
Note the finalizer, which allows us to see the exact time at which it will be collected by the GC.
Now, consider this helper function: it creates a new Dummy d
, then wraps it in a function closure and returns that closure.
static Func<int> MakeFunc()
{
Dummy d = new Dummy();
Func<int> f = () => {
d.i++;
Console.WriteLine("Func invoked, d.i is now " + d.i);
return d.i;
};
return f;
}
We can call it like this:
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("1");
Func<int> f = MakeFunc();
f();
Console.WriteLine("2");
Output:
1
Func invoked, d.i is now 1
2
We can force a garbage collection cycle:
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("3");
Output:
3
Note how we still haven't seen the finalizer running! The Dummy
object is still alive, being held by the function closure.
In fact, we can continue to call the function:
f();
Console.WriteLine("4");
Output:
Func invoked, d.i is now 2
4
That Dummy
instance will be finalized when we drop the reference and force another garbage collection cycle:
f = null;
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("5");
Output:
~Dummy --> 2
5
P.S.: Here I am using GC.Collect()
for demonstration purposes. It's generally unnecessary (and inadvisable) to call it like this in production code.
add a comment |
In the interest of simplicity, I will use a Dummy
class (instead of your generic A
):
class Dummy
{
public int i = 0;
~Dummy()
{
Console.WriteLine("~Dummy --> " + i);
}
}
Note the finalizer, which allows us to see the exact time at which it will be collected by the GC.
Now, consider this helper function: it creates a new Dummy d
, then wraps it in a function closure and returns that closure.
static Func<int> MakeFunc()
{
Dummy d = new Dummy();
Func<int> f = () => {
d.i++;
Console.WriteLine("Func invoked, d.i is now " + d.i);
return d.i;
};
return f;
}
We can call it like this:
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("1");
Func<int> f = MakeFunc();
f();
Console.WriteLine("2");
Output:
1
Func invoked, d.i is now 1
2
We can force a garbage collection cycle:
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("3");
Output:
3
Note how we still haven't seen the finalizer running! The Dummy
object is still alive, being held by the function closure.
In fact, we can continue to call the function:
f();
Console.WriteLine("4");
Output:
Func invoked, d.i is now 2
4
That Dummy
instance will be finalized when we drop the reference and force another garbage collection cycle:
f = null;
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("5");
Output:
~Dummy --> 2
5
P.S.: Here I am using GC.Collect()
for demonstration purposes. It's generally unnecessary (and inadvisable) to call it like this in production code.
add a comment |
In the interest of simplicity, I will use a Dummy
class (instead of your generic A
):
class Dummy
{
public int i = 0;
~Dummy()
{
Console.WriteLine("~Dummy --> " + i);
}
}
Note the finalizer, which allows us to see the exact time at which it will be collected by the GC.
Now, consider this helper function: it creates a new Dummy d
, then wraps it in a function closure and returns that closure.
static Func<int> MakeFunc()
{
Dummy d = new Dummy();
Func<int> f = () => {
d.i++;
Console.WriteLine("Func invoked, d.i is now " + d.i);
return d.i;
};
return f;
}
We can call it like this:
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("1");
Func<int> f = MakeFunc();
f();
Console.WriteLine("2");
Output:
1
Func invoked, d.i is now 1
2
We can force a garbage collection cycle:
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("3");
Output:
3
Note how we still haven't seen the finalizer running! The Dummy
object is still alive, being held by the function closure.
In fact, we can continue to call the function:
f();
Console.WriteLine("4");
Output:
Func invoked, d.i is now 2
4
That Dummy
instance will be finalized when we drop the reference and force another garbage collection cycle:
f = null;
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("5");
Output:
~Dummy --> 2
5
P.S.: Here I am using GC.Collect()
for demonstration purposes. It's generally unnecessary (and inadvisable) to call it like this in production code.
In the interest of simplicity, I will use a Dummy
class (instead of your generic A
):
class Dummy
{
public int i = 0;
~Dummy()
{
Console.WriteLine("~Dummy --> " + i);
}
}
Note the finalizer, which allows us to see the exact time at which it will be collected by the GC.
Now, consider this helper function: it creates a new Dummy d
, then wraps it in a function closure and returns that closure.
static Func<int> MakeFunc()
{
Dummy d = new Dummy();
Func<int> f = () => {
d.i++;
Console.WriteLine("Func invoked, d.i is now " + d.i);
return d.i;
};
return f;
}
We can call it like this:
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("1");
Func<int> f = MakeFunc();
f();
Console.WriteLine("2");
Output:
1
Func invoked, d.i is now 1
2
We can force a garbage collection cycle:
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("3");
Output:
3
Note how we still haven't seen the finalizer running! The Dummy
object is still alive, being held by the function closure.
In fact, we can continue to call the function:
f();
Console.WriteLine("4");
Output:
Func invoked, d.i is now 2
4
That Dummy
instance will be finalized when we drop the reference and force another garbage collection cycle:
f = null;
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("5");
Output:
~Dummy --> 2
5
P.S.: Here I am using GC.Collect()
for demonstration purposes. It's generally unnecessary (and inadvisable) to call it like this in production code.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:24
Pedro LMPedro LM
694310
694310
add a comment |
add a comment |
The GC will not remove the instance if there are still references to it. And a Func<> containing a reference to a field will hold a reference to the object (closure).
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
add a comment |
The GC will not remove the instance if there are still references to it. And a Func<> containing a reference to a field will hold a reference to the object (closure).
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
add a comment |
The GC will not remove the instance if there are still references to it. And a Func<> containing a reference to a field will hold a reference to the object (closure).
The GC will not remove the instance if there are still references to it. And a Func<> containing a reference to a field will hold a reference to the object (closure).
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:11
Klaus GütterKlaus Gütter
2,59221422
2,59221422
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
add a comment |
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
Thanks for clarification! :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53412238%2faccessing-field-of-out-of-scope-class-instance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Even not to mention the private modifier, how can a function access an instance member of a class unless it has an access to the instance itself (by parameter, closure or other class member, etc.) ? Obviously in that case it will have nothing to do with the instance created by
var instance = new A();
in your example.– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:10
@DmytroMukalov I edited the A class for more clarity :)
– Tedd Parsile
Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
In that case the instance will be retained as it's referenced by other object. It's not C++, an object is subject of GC not when it leaves the scope but rather when nobody else references it.
– Dmytro Mukalov
Nov 21 '18 at 13:36