Additionally I realized that with_trace and traced aren't parts of the > library! These should be built in there by default.
During the Review I've received multiple requests to embed stacktraces into exceptions. And everyone was requesting to do that in a different way. I've got about 5 different incompatible ways to do that, and everyone thinks that there's only one (or at most 3) right ways to do that.
There is one and only one way to do that, and it's to use Boost.Exception. That's what it's there for.
Every library defining its own with_foo and with_bar exception wrappers is not the way to go.
As long as there is a simple way to throw an exception such that: 1. It is derived from std::exception 2. It contains information about the stack trace It is ok for me. But this basic functionality this way or other should be present. I personally liked with_trace very much as very simple and intuitive, straight forward and does not require redesign of exception hierarchy (like I did in cppcms/booster)
And neither is duplicating the standard exception hierarchy as in
https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcms/code/HEAD/tree/framework/trunk/booster/boos...
I hadn't told that this is best approach it just one possible approach that I designed for CppCMS (not boost) I also hand't submitted it for boost review. Artyom