> doesn’t this all just boil down to the fact that the second exception happens during the first exception so naturally the co text of the second exception cont

> doesn’t this all just boil down to the fact that the second exception happens during the first exception so naturally the co text of the second exception contains both things “before” and after the first exception? My problem is that information is removed from the stacktrace of the first exception, and that this information cannot be constructed by looking at the stacktrace. This makes it so that the first exception's "life story" begins in the middle. > because OP ordered the functions by execution order That's coincidental. I'm arguing that, in the simple example, the execution order can be inferred from the stacktrace alone. Simply by reading top to bottom. This is not true for the first example.