As Lukas says, not if one has exceptions. �But Smalltalk-80 V2 didn't have exceptions, and so needed ^-return. �Personally I find ^-return elegant and a vital part of the language's simplicity. �If ^-return is not allowed in blocks then blocks are special-cases, must be explained, and avoided in certain cases, etc. �Getting rid of it pushes the language in a more traditional convenient-for-the-language-implementor direction that I think is a serious mistake. �Language should serve the author/reader, *not* the implementor.

Some simplicity, certainly. �But (IMO) ^-return isn't as complex as method lookup and message cacheing so you're not reducing complexity overall.

�

Yes, IIRC he got rid of first-class blocks. �They can only be downward funargs (passed as parameters), not upward funargs (stored in inst vars, returned as results and hence used after their enclosing activation has returned).