scoper | Scoper 淘宝和亚马逊的比价搜索爬虫 | Browser Plugin library

It's important to understand that "closure" is a concept that has a very specific meaning in functional programming. C++ however is not a functional language; it doesn't care all that much about strict adherence to functional programming terminology. It simply defines various functionality, some of which may or may not map well onto that terminology.

JavaScript and C++ are different languages. In JavaScript, a function has a property called being a "first-class object". This means that, when you execute the code to create a "function", you are creating an object that represents that function.A variable containing a function is fundamentally no different from a variable containing a string or a variable containing an array or whatever else. You can overwrite a variable that contains a function with an array, or vice-versa.

In particular, functions as first-class objects can have state associated with them at the point of their creation. If such a function reaches out of its scope to access a local variable, then that scope can be stored as part of the function's state; this state will be accessed automatically when you attempt to use that variable in the function. So it appears that you're reaching "out" of the function's scope, but you're not; the scope was brought "in" with you, and you're just accessing that.

In C++, a function is not a first-class object. You can get a pointer to a function, but function pointers are explicitly distinct from object pointers (casting between the two is not even required to be valid). A function is not "created" or "destroyed" as far as the C++ language is concerned; every function is always there, from the start of the program to its end.

C++ functions can access global variables, but that's because they're global. The location of a global variable is baked into the executable at compile/link time, so no special state needs to be stored with the function in order to access it.

However, C++ does have a useful concept that can help to create the effect of a first-class function object. Namely, a class type can overload the function call operator operator(). This allows an instance of a class to be called as if it were a function. Class instances are objects and can have internal state (aka: member variables), and the operator() overload is just a member function of the type.

Given all of that, you can create something that simulates a properly scoped function object. All you need is a class that has member variables that correspond to the variables outside of the function's scope which it references. These members can be initialized in the class's constructor by passing the external values to the constructor. Then you have a valid object which you can call, and it can access those "external" variables by using its member variables.

This is all a C++ lambda is. It wraps all of this up in "nice, neat" syntax. It writes a class for you; it writes the member variables you "capture" from the external world for you, and it calls the constructor and passes those variables for you.

However, C++ is a language that tries hard not to make something more expensive than you need it to be. The more external variables you use, the more internal member variables the lambda will need, and thus the bigger the class will be and the longer it will take to initialize/copy/etc. Therefore, if you want to use some external variable (which is implemented as a member variable), C++ requires you to either explicitly list it (so that you know that you meant to capture it) or to use the default capture mechanisms [=] or [&] (so that you are explicitly giving up your right to complain about accidentally making your lambda type huge and/or slow).

Furthermore, in JavaScript, everything is a reference. Variables store references to arrays, functions, dictionaries, etc. JavaScript is a reference-based language.

C++ is a value-oriented language. A variable in JavaScript references an object; a variable in C++ is an object. You cannot replace one object with another in C++; you may copy over the value of an object, but it is still that object.

As such, how a lambda ought to capture a particular variable becomes relevant. You can capture variables by value (copying the value into the hidden member) or by reference (referencing the object).

This is of particular importance because C++ is not garbage collected. That means that, just because you have a reference to an object does not mean the object still exists. If you have a variable on the stack, and you get a reference to it, and that reference exists past the point where the stack variable goes out of scope... that reference is now useless. In JavaScript, it'd be fine because of garbage collecting. But C++ doesn't do that. You have a reference to a destroyed object, which cannot be used.

So if you want a lambda to capture local variables and you want the lambda to persist past the point where the variables no longer exist, you will need to capture such variables by value, not by reference.

Capturing by value or by reference is determined by how you list the variable in the list of captures. &x means to capture by reference, while x is a capture by value. The default capture [=] means to capture by value by default, with [&] meaning reference capture by default.

You're trying to apply @Autowired to a random method, which isn't how Spring works. Controller method parameters are for information specific to that HTTP request, not general dependencies, and so Spring is trying to create a new Scoper that is associated with the request--but it doesn't have any incoming values in the request to fill in. (I'm actually surprised you're not getting an error about no default constructor.)

Instead, pass your Scoper in a constructor.