Dawid Ciężarkiewicz

Hmmm... I really like the **ability** to manually add context, but on the other hand using `snafu` so far is really tedious and noisy, often in places where I have...

I guess I basically want some of the auto-type conversions from `failure` with ability to handily define an error context as in `snafu`.

Hmmm... I was actually able to automate the conversion by just implementing ``` impl std::convert::From for super::Error { fn from(e: redis::RedisError) -> Self { super::Error::IO { source: Box::new(e), } }...

https://docs.rs/snafu/0.4.1/snafu/guide/attributes/index.html#transforming-the-source could use examples of what changes in the code handling errors or something. Otherwise it's not immediately clear what have actually changed.

BTW. After a while, I wrote some stuff about context on internals forum: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/thoughts-on-error-context-in-error-handling-libraries/10349/8 . If I ever have any more thoughts, I might add more comments here. Thank you...

IMO, it would be much better if all documentation would be a part of the source code and documentation autogenerated on https://docs.rs . Linking is better than nothing, but still.

Does the PR seem like a reasonable approach?

In `slog` loggers (which are called Drain) [impl a trait](https://docs.rs/slog/2.2.3/slog/trait.Drain.html). That seems like an idiomatic way to do it. This way they can be generalized over, composed, etc.

I've explicitly mentioned that Send and Sync is something to consider for the future, but I don't think anyone followed up on that. In `slog` there are these explicitly built...

Really? Awesome. Is that planned to be added before `log 1.0.0` release?