<snip> I am wordering why in the list of questions for reviewers there is no question about whether the name of the studied library corresponds to its essense, or it is too wide or biased.
The library name issue was raised in this discussion, as well as in the preliminary discussions. Boost Exception would be most useful if it is adopted by a wide user base, as that would allow mid-level contexts to intercept any exception and augment it with additional data without specific knowledge of lower level libraries that throw exceptions, and higher level libraries that handle them. The class name boost::exception was chosen to represent its intended purpose as a base class for all exception types, much like std::exception. It has been carefully designed to be compatible with the current semantics of std::exception; this enables a future revision of the C++ standard to expand std::exception to include similar data-transport functionality. Emil Dotchevski