# 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:** 131

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StefanKarpinski](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stefankarpinski/32/24_2.png) [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 12:33am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/131 "2018-10-06T00:33:05Z")

</div>

It sounds like you have come around to exactly @jeff.bezanson’s position 😁. I was skeptical about this design initially, but after mulling it over for a while, it’s grown on me. Yes, local is a better default than global, but the more skilled user can easily either (a) do things inside functions or (b) sprinkle a `local` here and there. Putting the burden of knowledge on the more advanced user seems appropriate.

---

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