I did another pass on the Block chapter I'm writing and I would like to know if I'm not saying something wrong. Here is what I wrote. The following examples shows that escaping blocks jumped to their home context but do not unwind the stack after this point. \ct{valueWithExit} is defined on the class BlockClosure as follows. \begin{code}{} BlockClosure>>valueWithExit self value: [ ^nil ] \end{code} \begin{code}{} BExp>>assert: aBoolean aBoolean ifFalse: [Error signal] BExp>>testValueWithExitBreak | val | [ :break | 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | val := i. i = 4 ifTrue: [break value]. ] ] valueWithExit. self assert: val = 4. \end{code} \ct{testValueWithExitBreak} shows that the block \ct{break} is created and activated once and as effect it cancels the rest of the computation. The following method \ct{testValueWithExitContinue} shows that just the computation left from the block activation is skipped (here \ct{val := val + 1. last := i}, when i = 4) and this is why the value of \ct{val} is 9 and not 10. In this example, a new block is created \begin{code}{} BExp>>testValueWithExitContinue | val last | val := 0. 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | [ :continue | i = 4 ifTrue: [continue value]. val := val + 1. last := i ] valueWithExit. ]. self assert: val = 9. self assert: last = 10. \end{code} Pay attention here \ct{valueWithExit} is not equivalent to \ct{value: [^nil]} because it changes the home context of the block. In the first case the homeContext of the block is not the method \ct{testValueWithExitContinue} while in the second it is. Put a self halt before the assert: to convince you. In one case, you will reach the halt while in the other not.