[self doSomethingErroneous]
	on: Error
	do: [^self]

... is supported (with/without arg in the do: block), although probably
the more "correct" (?) thing to do would be to use an outer handler (my
nil-checking being "ugly" too).  In similar code, I have seen behaviour
that suggests that ^-return might snarl up a nested ensure: (etc.), if
such exists on the stack.  But I don't use the right vm.  If your
results differ depending on whether or not (per Bob's suggestion) you
build an exception-friendly vm, then that's what's going on, and you
should use the vm Bob pointed out.  Tim tested the snot out of that
thing ...

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 6 May 2001, Paul McDonough wrote:
> 
> > But while in Bert's particular case the result may be the same, there
> > are definitely potential differences when it comes to resume:, return:,
> > and just letting the handler block "fall off", viz.
> > [...snip...]
> 
> In "my" particular case I'd rather just put a method return into the
> exception handler (instead of testing for nil after the handler). Would
> that be okay?
> 
> -- Bert