I found the following rather strange. Then again, I have mostly used closures in dynamic languages which shouldn't be suspectable to the same "bug". The following makes the compiler unhappy:
VoidFunction t = delegate { int i = 0; };
int i = 1;
It says:
A local variable named 'i' cannot be
declared in this scope because it
would give a different meaning to 'i',
which is already used in a 'child'
scope to denote something else
So this basically means that variables declared inside a delegate will have the scope of the function declared in. Not exactly what I would have expected. I havn't even tried to call the function. At least Common Lisp has a feature where you say that a variable should have a dynamic name, if you really want it to be local. This is particularly important when creating macros that do not leak, but something like that would be helpful here as well.
So I'm wondering what other people do to work around this issue?
To clarify I'm looking for a solution where the variables I declare in the delegete doesn't interfere with variables declared after the delegate. And I want to still be able to capture variables declared before the delegate.
It has to be that way to allow anonymous methods (and lambdas) to use local variables and parameters scoped in the containing method.
The workarounds are to either use different names for the variable, or create an ordinary method.
The "closure" created by an anonymous function is somewhat different from that created in other dynamic languages (I'll use Javascript as an example).
function thing() {
var o1 = {n:1}
var o2 = {dummy:"Hello"}
return function() { return o1.n++; }
}
var fn = thing();
alert(fn());
alert(fn());
This little chunk of javascript will display 1 then 2. The anonymous function can access the o1 variable because it exists on its scope chain. However the anonymous function has an entirely independant scope in which it could create another o1 variable and thereby hide any other further down the scope chain. Note also that all variables in the entire chain remain, hence o2 would continue to exist holding an object reference for as long as the fn varialbe holds the function reference.
Now compare with C# anonymous functions:-
class C1 { public int n {get; set;} }
class C2 { public string dummy { get; set; } }
Func<int> thing() {
var o1 = new C1() {n=1};
var o2 = new C2() {dummy="Hello"};
return delegate { return o1.n++; };
}
...
Func<int> fn = thing();
Console.WriteLine(fn());
Console.WriteLine(fn());
In this case the anonymous function is not creating a truely independant scope any more than variable declaration in any other in-function { } block of code would be (used in a foreach, if, etc.)
Hence the same rules apply, code outside the block cannot access variables declared inside the block but you cannot reuse an identifier either.
A closure is created when the anonymous function is passed outside of the function that it was created in. The variation from the Javascript example is that only those variables actually used by the anonymous function will remain, hence in this case the object held by o2 will be available for GC as soon as thing completes,
You'll also get CS0136 from code like this:
int i = 0;
if (i == 0) {
int i = 1;
}
The scope of the 2nd declaration of "i" is unambiguous, languages like C++ don't have any beef with it. But the C# language designers decided to forbid it. Given the above snippet, do you think still think that was a bad idea? Throw in a bunch of extra code and you could stare at this code for a while and not see the bug.
The workaround is trivial and painless, just come up with a different variable name.
It's because the delegate can reference variables outside the delegate:
int i = 1;
VoidFunction t = delegate { Console.WriteLine(i); };
If I remember correctly, the compiler creates a class member of the outside variables referenced in the anonymous method, in order to make this work.
Here is a workaround:
class Program
{
void Main()
{
VoidFunction t = RealFunction;
int i = 1;
}
delegate void VoidFunction();
void RealFunction() { int i = 0; }
}
Actually, the error doesn't seem to have anything to do with anonymous delegates or lamda expressions. If you try to compile the following program ...
using System;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
// Action t = delegate
{
int i = 0;
};
int i = 1;
}
}
... you get exactly the same error, no matter whether you comment in the line or not. The error help shows a very similar case. I think it is reasonable to disallow both cases on the grounds that programmers could confuse the two variables.
Related
What is a closure? Do we have them in .NET?
If they do exist in .NET, could you please provide a code snippet (preferably in C#) explaining it?
I have an article on this very topic. (It has lots of examples.)
In essence, a closure is a block of code which can be executed at a later time, but which maintains the environment in which it was first created - i.e. it can still use the local variables etc of the method which created it, even after that method has finished executing.
The general feature of closures is implemented in C# by anonymous methods and lambda expressions.
Here's an example using an anonymous method:
using System;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Action action = CreateAction();
action();
action();
}
static Action CreateAction()
{
int counter = 0;
return delegate
{
// Yes, it could be done in one statement;
// but it is clearer like this.
counter++;
Console.WriteLine("counter={0}", counter);
};
}
}
Output:
counter=1
counter=2
Here we can see that the action returned by CreateAction still has access to the counter variable, and can indeed increment it, even though CreateAction itself has finished.
If you are interested in seeing how C# implements Closure read "I know the answer (its 42) blog"
The compiler generates a class in the background to encapsulate the anoymous method and the variable j
[CompilerGenerated]
private sealed class <>c__DisplayClass2
{
public <>c__DisplayClass2();
public void <fillFunc>b__0()
{
Console.Write("{0} ", this.j);
}
public int j;
}
for the function:
static void fillFunc(int count) {
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
int j = i;
funcArr[i] = delegate()
{
Console.Write("{0} ", j);
};
}
}
Turning it into:
private static void fillFunc(int count)
{
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
Program.<>c__DisplayClass1 class1 = new Program.<>c__DisplayClass1();
class1.j = i;
Program.funcArr[i] = new Func(class1.<fillFunc>b__0);
}
}
Closures are functional values that hold onto variable values from their original scope. C# can use them in the form of anonymous delegates.
For a very simple example, take this C# code:
delegate int testDel();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int foo = 4;
testDel myClosure = delegate()
{
return foo;
};
int bar = myClosure();
}
At the end of it, bar will be set to 4, and the myClosure delegate can be passed around to be used elsewhere in the program.
Closures can be used for a lot of useful things, like delayed execution or to simplify interfaces - LINQ is mainly built using closures. The most immediate way it comes in handy for most developers is adding event handlers to dynamically created controls - you can use closures to add behavior when the control is instantiated, rather than storing data elsewhere.
Func<int, int> GetMultiplier(int a)
{
return delegate(int b) { return a * b; } ;
}
//...
var fn2 = GetMultiplier(2);
var fn3 = GetMultiplier(3);
Console.WriteLine(fn2(2)); //outputs 4
Console.WriteLine(fn2(3)); //outputs 6
Console.WriteLine(fn3(2)); //outputs 6
Console.WriteLine(fn3(3)); //outputs 9
A closure is an anonymous function passed outside of the function in which it is created.
It maintains any variables from the function in which it is created that it uses.
A closure is when a function is defined inside another function (or method) and it uses the variables from the parent method. This use of variables which are located in a method and wrapped in a function defined within it, is called a closure.
Mark Seemann has some interesting examples of closures in his blog post where he does a parallel between oop and functional programming.
And to make it more detailed
var workingDirectory = new DirectoryInfo(Environment.CurrentDirectory);//when this variable
Func<int, string> read = id =>
{
var path = Path.Combine(workingDirectory.FullName, id + ".txt");//is used inside this function
return File.ReadAllText(path);
};//the entire process is called a closure.
Here is a contrived example for C# which I created from similar code in JavaScript:
public delegate T Iterator<T>() where T : class;
public Iterator<T> CreateIterator<T>(IList<T> x) where T : class
{
var i = 0;
return delegate { return (i < x.Count) ? x[i++] : null; };
}
So, here is some code that shows how to use the above code...
var iterator = CreateIterator(new string[3] { "Foo", "Bar", "Baz"});
// So, although CreateIterator() has been called and returned, the variable
// "i" within CreateIterator() will live on because of a closure created
// within that method, so that every time the anonymous delegate returned
// from it is called (by calling iterator()) it's value will increment.
string currentString;
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now "Foo"
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now "Bar"
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now "Baz"
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now null
Hope that is somewhat helpful.
Closures are chunks of code that reference a variable outside themselves, (from below them on the stack), that might be called or executed later, (like when an event or delegate is defined, and could get called at some indefinite future point in time)... Because the outside variable that the chunk of code references may gone out of scope (and would otherwise have been lost), the fact that it is referenced by the chunk of code (called a closure) tells the runtime to "hold" that variable in scope until it is no longer needed by the closure chunk of code...
Basically closure is a block of code that you can pass as an argument to a function. C# supports closures in form of anonymous delegates.
Here is a simple example:
List.Find method can accept and execute piece of code (closure) to find list's item.
// Passing a block of code as a function argument
List<int> ints = new List<int> {1, 2, 3};
ints.Find(delegate(int value) { return value == 1; });
Using C#3.0 syntax we can write this as:
ints.Find(value => value == 1);
If you write an inline anonymous method (C#2) or (preferably) a Lambda expression (C#3+), an actual method is still being created. If that code is using an outer-scope local variable - you still need to pass that variable to the method somehow.
e.g. take this Linq Where clause (which is a simple extension method which passes a lambda expression):
var i = 0;
var items = new List<string>
{
"Hello","World"
};
var filtered = items.Where(x =>
// this is a predicate, i.e. a Func<T, bool> written as a lambda expression
// which is still a method actually being created for you in compile time
{
i++;
return true;
});
if you want to use i in that lambda expression, you have to pass it to that created method.
So the first question that arises is: should it be passed by value or reference?
Pass by reference is (I guess) more preferable as you get read/write access to that variable (and this is what C# does; I guess the team in Microsoft weighed the pros and cons and went with by-reference; According to Jon Skeet's article, Java went with by-value).
But then another question arises: Where to allocate that i?
Should it actually/naturally be allocated on the stack?
Well, if you allocate it on the stack and pass it by reference, there can be situations where it outlives it's own stack frame. Take this example:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Outlive();
var list = whereItems.ToList();
Console.ReadLine();
}
static IEnumerable<string> whereItems;
static void Outlive()
{
var i = 0;
var items = new List<string>
{
"Hello","World"
};
whereItems = items.Where(x =>
{
i++;
Console.WriteLine(i);
return true;
});
}
The lambda expression (in the Where clause) again creates a method which refers to an i. If i is allocated on the stack of Outlive, then by the time you enumerate the whereItems, the i used in the generated method will point to the i of Outlive, i.e. to a place in the stack that is no longer accessible.
Ok, so we need it on the heap then.
So what the C# compiler does to support this inline anonymous/lambda, is use what is called "Closures": It creates a class on the Heap called (rather poorly) DisplayClass which has a field containing the i, and the Function that actually uses it.
Something that would be equivalent to this (you can see the IL generated using ILSpy or ILDASM):
class <>c_DisplayClass1
{
public int i;
public bool <GetFunc>b__0()
{
this.i++;
Console.WriteLine(i);
return true;
}
}
It instantiates that class in your local scope, and replaces any code relating to i or the lambda expression with that closure instance. So - anytime you are using the i in your "local scope" code where i was defined, you are actually using that DisplayClass instance field.
So if I would change the "local" i in the main method, it will actually change _DisplayClass.i ;
i.e.
var i = 0;
var items = new List<string>
{
"Hello","World"
};
var filtered = items.Where(x =>
{
i++;
return true;
});
filtered.ToList(); // will enumerate filtered, i = 2
i = 10; // i will be overwriten with 10
filtered.ToList(); // will enumerate filtered again, i = 12
Console.WriteLine(i); // should print out 12
it will print out 12, as "i = 10" goes to that dispalyclass field and changes it just before the 2nd enumeration.
A good source on the topic is this Bart De Smet Pluralsight module (requires registration) (also ignore his erroneous use of the term "Hoisting" - what (I think) he means is that the local variable (i.e. i) is changed to refer to the the new DisplayClass field).
In other news, there seems to be some misconception that "Closures" are related to loops - as I understand "Closures" are NOT a concept related to loops, but rather to anonymous methods / lambda expressions use of local scoped variables - although some trick questions use loops to demonstrate it.
A closure aims to simplify functional thinking, and it allows the runtime to manage
state, releasing extra complexity for the developer. A closure is a first-class function
with free variables that are bound in the lexical environment. Behind these buzzwords
hides a simple concept: closures are a more convenient way to give functions access
to local state and to pass data into background operations. They are special functions
that carry an implicit binding to all the nonlocal variables (also called free variables or
up-values) referenced. Moreover, a closure allows a function to access one or more nonlocal variables even when invoked outside its immediate lexical scope, and the body
of this special function can transport these free variables as a single entity, defined in
its enclosing scope. More importantly, a closure encapsulates behavior and passes it
around like any other object, granting access to the context in which the closure was
created, reading, and updating these values.
Just out of the blue,a simple and more understanding answer from the book C# 7.0 nutshell.
Pre-requisit you should know :A lambda expression can reference the local variables and parameters of the method
in which it’s defined (outer variables).
static void Main()
{
int factor = 2;
//Here factor is the variable that takes part in lambda expression.
Func<int, int> multiplier = n => n * factor;
Console.WriteLine (multiplier (3)); // 6
}
Real part:Outer variables referenced by a lambda expression are called captured variables. A lambda expression that captures variables is called a closure.
Last Point to be noted:Captured variables are evaluated when the delegate is actually invoked, not when the variables were captured:
int factor = 2;
Func<int, int> multiplier = n => n * factor;
factor = 10;
Console.WriteLine (multiplier (3)); // 30
A closure is a function, defined within a function, that can access the local variables of it as well as its parent.
public string GetByName(string name)
{
List<things> theThings = new List<things>();
return theThings.Find<things>(t => t.Name == name)[0];
}
so the function inside the find method.
t => t.Name == name
can access the variables inside its scope, t, and the variable name which is in its parents scope. Even though it is executed by the find method as a delegate, from another scope all together.
This question already has answers here:
Variable scope confusion in C#
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Reference Code
public void MyMethod()
{
string x;
List sampleList = populateList();
foreach(MyType myType in sampleList)
{
string x; // why is this not allowed?
doSomethingwithX(x);
}
}
I recently started learning C# and today ran into issue with code similar to the above. VS2010 flagged the commented code with this message a local variable named x cannot be declared in this scope because it would give a different meaning to variable x which is already used in parent or current scope to denote something else....
I dont get it...isnt that the whole essence of block statements and scoping...I know i can just change my variable names and go ahead.but i'd like to know WHY?
I dont get it...isnt that the whole essence of block statements and scoping...
No, not really. The intention of scoping isn't "to allow you to reuse names".
I know i can just change my variable names and go ahead.but i'd like to know WHY?
It reduces the possibilities for confusing code, basically. There are various situations where C# prevents you from writing code which is confusing. Not as many as we might like, of course, but where there's no clear benefit from allowing something, and a clear benefit from disallowing it, it makes sense to disallow it.
Would you ever want to work with code that had the same local variable name in scope twice? Wouldn't you always prefer the original developer to use a different name? I would - so I'm glad the compiler enforces that.
Note that this doesn't prevent the same local variable name being used twice in the same method - they just can't be in the same scope. So this is valid:
public void Foo()
{
{
int x = 10;
...
}
{
int x = 10;
...
}
}
But this isn't:
public void Foo()
{
{
int x = 10;
...
}
int x = 10;
...
}
If the second example is confusing, you need to bear in mind that the scope of a local variable is the block in which it was declared - not from the declaration point onwards.
Previously defined x is still in scope that's why compiler stops you from declaring other one.
You can verify this by limiting the scope of previous variable by wrapping it in curly braces -
public void MyMethod()
{
{
string x;
}
List sampleList = populateList();
foreach(MyType myType in sampleList)
{
string x; // This will be fine.
doSomethingwithX(x);
}
}
The x in the for loop is not visible outwith the loop, but the x you declared at the start of the method is visible within the for loop.
Outwith the loop you have one x but inside it there are two, both of which are being declared
You cannot declare string x; again. .. it will have different meaning. Since string x; is declared inside a method. The scope of x will be available through out the method. . So please declare some other variable inside for each loop. ..
Or you can just x. Instead of declaring again. .
I'm just couris about whats happning behind the scenes. I have this code and of course it will not compile cause I create the hello variable inside a if statement and later try to declare it agian. Why dosen't .NET allow me to do so? Whats happning behind the scences that could make the hello variable interfeer with the one inside the statement.
It's very stright forward why this could interfeer if the variable was declared before the if statement.
public void Test() {
if (true)
{
var hello = "";
}
var hello = "";
Console.Write(hello);
}
The declaration space of a name extends to fill its entire block, even before the declaration.
See Eric Lippert's blog post.
Just to clarify, there are two rules violated here.
The first is that nested local variable declaration spaces may not contain two declarations of the same name.
The second is that nested local scopes may not contain two usages of the same simple name or declaration to mean two different things.
Both rules are violated. Note that the first rule is essentially a special case of the second rule. The second rule is more general; for example, this is also a violation:
class C
{
int x;
void M()
{
if (whatever)
{
string x = "";
}
x = 10;
}
}
Here the simple name x is used to mean this.x in one local scope and the local variable x in a nested scope. This is confusing; a simple name is required to mean the same thing throughout its entire block. We therefore make it illegal. This would be legal:
class C
{
int x;
void M()
{
if (whatever)
{
string x = "";
}
}
}
Even though the local variable is declared in a scope nested inside the scope of the field, this is allowed because the field's scope is not a local variable declaration space.
This is also legal:
class C
{
int x;
void M()
{
if (whatever)
{
string x = "";
}
else
{
x = 2;
}
}
}
because now the two conflicting usages of x are both used consistently throughout the entirity of their immediately containing scopes. Those scopes now do not overlap, so this is allowed. (It is still a bad idea however.)
These rules are there for your safety but they can be quite confusing. See
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/tags/declaration+spaces/
and
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/tags/scope/
for some articles on these language features.
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa691132(v=vs.71).aspx:
The scope of a name is the region of program text within which it is possible to refer to the entity declared by the name without qualification of the name. Scopes can be nested, and an inner scope may redeclare the meaning of a name from an outer scope. (This does not, however, remove the restriction imposed by Section 3.3 that within a nested block it is not possible to declare a local variable with the same name as a local variable in an enclosing block.) The name from the outer scope is then said to be hidden in the region of program text covered by the inner scope, and access to the outer name is only possible by qualifying the name.
This one's really an offshoot of this question, but I think it deserves its own answer.
According to section 15.13 of the ECMA-334 (on the using statement, below referred to as resource-acquisition):
Local variables declared in a
resource-acquisition are read-only, and shall include an initializer. A
compile-time error occurs if the
embedded statement attempts to modify
these local variables (via assignment
or the ++ and -- operators) or
pass them as ref or out
parameters.
This seems to explain why the code below is illegal.
struct Mutable : IDisposable
{
public int Field;
public void SetField(int value) { Field = value; }
public void Dispose() { }
}
using (var m = new Mutable())
{
// This results in a compiler error.
m.Field = 10;
}
But what about this?
using (var e = new Mutable())
{
// This is doing exactly the same thing, but it compiles and runs just fine.
e.SetField(10);
}
Is the above snippet undefined and/or illegal in C#? If it's legal, what is the relationship between this code and the excerpt from the spec above? If it's illegal, why does it work? Is there some subtle loophole that permits it, or is the fact that it works attributable only to mere luck (so that one shouldn't ever rely on the functionality of such seemingly harmless-looking code)?
I would read the standard in such a way that
using( var m = new Mutable() )
{
m = new Mutable();
}
is forbidden - with reason that seem obious.
Why for the struct Mutable it is not allowed beats me. Because for a class the code is legal and compiles fine...(object type i know..)
Also I do not see a reason why changing the contents of the value type does endanger the RA. Someone care to explain?
Maybe someone doing the syntx checking just misread the standard ;-)
Mario
I suspect the reason it compiles and runs is that SetField(int) is a function call, not an assignment or ref or out parameter call. The compiler has no way of knowing (in general) whether SetField(int) is going to mutate the variable or not.
This appears completely legal according to the spec.
And consider the alternatives. Static analysis to determine whether a given function call is going to mutate a value is clearly cost prohibitive in the C# compiler. The spec is designed to avoid that situation in all cases.
The other alternative would be for C# to not allow any method calls on value type variables declared in a using statement. That might not be a bad idea, since implementing IDisposable on a struct is just asking for trouble anyway. But when the C# language was first developed, I think they had high hopes for using structs in lots of interesting ways (as the GetEnumerator() example that you originally used demonstrates).
To sum it up
struct Mutable : IDisposable
{
public int Field;
public void SetField( int value ) { Field = value; }
public void Dispose() { }
}
class Program
{
protected static readonly Mutable xxx = new Mutable();
static void Main( string[] args )
{
//not allowed by compiler
//xxx.Field = 10;
xxx.SetField( 10 );
//prints out 0 !!!! <--- I do think that this is pretty bad
System.Console.Out.WriteLine( xxx.Field );
using ( var m = new Mutable() )
{
// This results in a compiler error.
//m.Field = 10;
m.SetField( 10 );
//This prints out 10 !!!
System.Console.Out.WriteLine( m.Field );
}
System.Console.In.ReadLine();
}
So in contrast to what I wrote above, I would recommend to NOT use a function to modify a struct within a using block. This seems wo work, but may stop to work in the future.
Mario
This behavior is undefined. In The C# Programming language at the end of the C# 4.0 spec section 7.6.4 (Member Access) Peter Sestoft states:
The two bulleted points stating "if the field is readonly...then
the result is a value" have a slightly surprising effect when the
field has a struct type, and that struct type has a mutable field (not
a recommended combination--see other annotations on this point).
He provides an example. I created my own example which displays more detail below.
Then, he goes on to say:
Somewhat strangely, if instead s were a local variable of struct type
declared in a using statement, which also has the effect of making s
immutable, then s.SetX() updates s.x as expected.
Here we see one of the authors acknowledge that this behavior is inconsistent. Per section 7.6.4, readonly fields are treated as values and do not change (copies change). Because section 8.13 tells us using statements treat resources as read-only:
the resource variable is read-only in the embedded statement,
resources in using statements should behave like readonly fields. Per the rules of 7.6.4 we should be dealing with a value not a variable. But surprisingly, the original value of the resource does change as demonstrated in this example:
//Sections relate to C# 4.0 spec
class Test
{
readonly S readonlyS = new S();
static void Main()
{
Test test = new Test();
test.readonlyS.SetX();//valid we are incrementing the value of a copy of readonlyS. This is per the rules defined in 7.6.4
Console.WriteLine(test.readonlyS.x);//outputs 0 because readonlyS is a value not a variable
//test.readonlyS.x = 0;//invalid
using (S s = new S())
{
s.SetX();//valid, changes the original value.
Console.WriteLine(s.x);//Surprisingly...outputs 2. Although S is supposed to be a readonly field...the behavior diverges.
//s.x = 0;//invalid
}
}
}
struct S : IDisposable
{
public int x;
public void SetX()
{
x = 2;
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
}
The situation is bizarre. Bottom line, avoid creating readonly mutable fields.
I find myself doing the following a lot, and i don't know if there is any side effects or not but consider the following in a WinForms C# app.
(please excuse any errors as i am typing the code in, not copy pasting anything)
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int c = 3;
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate()
{
int lol = a + b + c;
});
Is there anything wrong with that? Or should i be doing the long way >_<
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int c = 3;
TrippleIntDelegate ffs = new TrippleIntDelegate(delegate(int a_, int b_, int c_)
{
int lol = a_ + b_ + c_;
});
this.Invoke(ffs);
The difference being the parameters are passed in instead of using the local variables, some pretty sweet .net magic. I think i looked at reflector on it once and it created an entirely new class to hold those variables.
So does it matter? Can i be lazy?
Edit: Note, do not care about the return value obviously. Otherwise i'd have to use my own typed delegate, albeit i could still use the local variables without passing it in!
The way you use it, it doesn't really make a difference. However, in the first case, your anonymous method is capturing the variables, which can have pretty big side effects if you don't know what your doing. For instance :
// No capture :
int a = 1;
Action<int> action = delegate(int a)
{
a = 42; // method parameter a
});
action(a);
Console.WriteLine(a); // 1
// Capture of local variable a :
int a = 1;
Action action = delegate()
{
a = 42; // captured local variable a
};
action();
Console.WriteLine(a); // 42
There's nothing wrong with passing in local variables as long as you understand that you're getting deferred execution. If you write this:
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int c = 3;
Action action = () => Console.WriteLine(a + b + c);
c = 10;
action(); // Or Invoke(action), etc.
The output of this will be 13, not 6. I suppose this would be the counterpart to what Thomas said; if you read locals in a delegate, it will use whatever values the variables hold when the action is actually executed, not when it is declared. This can produce some interesting results if the variables hold reference types and you invoke the delegate asynchronously.
Other than that, there are lots of good reasons to pass local variables into a delegate; among other things, it can be used to simplify threading code. It's perfectly fine to do as long as you don't get sloppy with it.
Well, all of the other answers seem to ignore the multi-threading context and the issues that arise in that case. If you are indeed using this from WinForms, your first example could throw exceptions. Depending on the actual data you are trying to reference from your delegate, the thread that code is actually invoked on may or may not have the right to access the data you close around.
On the other hand, your second example actually passes the data via parameters. That allows the Invoke method to properly marshal data across thread boundaries and avoid those nasty threading issues. If you are calling Invoke from, say, a background worker, then then you should use something like your second example (although I would opt to use the Action<T, ...> and Func<T, ...> delegates whenever possible rather than creating new ones).
From a style perspective I'd choose the paramater passing variant. It's expresses the intent much easier to pass args instad of take ambients of any sort (and also makes it easier to test). I mean, you could do this:
public void Int32 Add()
{
return this.Number1 + this.Number2
}
but it's neither testable or clear. The sig taking params is much clearer to others what the method is doing... it's adding two numbers: not an arbatrary set of numbers or whatever.
I regularly do this with parms like collections which are used via ref anyway and don't need to be explicitlly 'returned':
public List<string> AddNames(List<String> names)
{
names.Add("kevin");
return names;
}
Even though the names collection is passed by ref and thus does not need to be explicitly returned, it is to me much clearer that the method takes the list and adds to it, then returns it back. In this case, there is no technical reason to write the sig this way, but, to me, good reasons as far as clarity and therefore maintainablity are concerned.