# Another possible solution to the global scope debacle

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Created:** [October 4, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894 "2018-10-04T18:14:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 106

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeff.bezanson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/jeff.bezanson/32/48_2.png) [@jeff.bezanson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/jeff.bezanson)\
**Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/106 "2018-10-05T20:37:42Z")

</div>

> [@StefanKarpinski](#):
>
> I think I prefer (2) myself, but @jeff.bezanson had compelling reasons for (1) which I can’t recall at the moment. Perhaps he can refresh my memory.

Currently `for` loops behave like “repeated `let`” — they’re exactly like `let` blocks but with a backwards branch. So continuing to treat them the same feels like fewer special cases to me.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894)._