25 Oct
2016
25 Oct
'16
7:17 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-10-25 22:00 GMT+03:00 Nat Goodspeed <nat@lindenlab.com>:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it ok to have a nonmovable type for a stack frame?
Could it be move-only?
So a copy of `frame` becomes invalid after the stacktrace destruction.
Maybe a frame should be a weak_ptr<internal_class>, accessed with pointer semantics?