The question is whether the first example you posted is sane. I personally dont think it is. Thats not to say that im right, but id like to hear a cogent explanation of why im wrong before I change my mind. IOW, it seems to me that localizing $@ should affect only evals called from within the block. Once the block ends (either through run-to-bottom or through a fatal error) the localization should end and the value of the failed eval should be avalable in the outer context.

In short, I consider the behaviour of the first example you posted to be inconsistant with both the general understanding of localization and my understanding of how localization works internally. In short I suspect a bug that is more or less the omission of a LEAVE statement.