duplicates:

• SR-944 Cannot use 'self' in RHS of && before all properties are initialized

Issue Description:

The autoclosure of the second argument of Swift's && implementation has resulted in an error which at best is incredibly confusing, and in my opinion, actually incorrect. The code is as follows:

struct Test {
    var prop1: Bool
    var prop2: Bool
    
    init() {
        self.prop2 = false
        self.prop1 = true && self.prop2
    }
}

which results in the following error:

error: MyPlayground.playground:1:30: error: variable 'self.prop1' captured by a closure before being initialized
        self.prop1 = true && self.prop2

If I had not already been aware of the fact that the second argument of && is autoclosure'd, this error message would have been truly baffling. I never would have thought to look into the definition of the && operator as the source of the error until I had invested a long time debugging.

But this shouldn't even be an error at all! I've already initialized self.prop2, so I should be able to use it to initialize my other properties without having to resort to this workaround:

struct Test {
    var prop1: Bool
    var prop2: Bool
    
    init() {
        self.prop2 = false
        let temp = self.prop2
        self.prop1 = true && temp
    }
}

IMO, the compiler should be smart enough to realize that either we should not try to autoclosure this expression since it would capture self in an initializer, OR recognize that it only needs to capture properties of self that have already been initialized.

If this is undesired/infeasible at the moment, then the error message should at least give some indication that the reason for the capture is an autoclosure of the && operator, and that the issue is that all of self has to be captured. Note that if we make Test into a class, the error message is marginally better:

error: MyPlayground.playground:1:30: error: 'self' captured by a closure before all members were initialized
        self.prop1 = true && self.prop2

The current state of affairs makes it seem like there is somehow a closure capturing the left hand side of the = operator above.