# 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:** 148

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablosanjose](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/pablosanjose/32/7006_2.png) [@pablosanjose](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/pablosanjose)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 8:11am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/148 "2018-10-06T08:11:06Z")

</div>

I told my wife over breakfast today (she’s a physicist who teaches Matlab at university, not a Julia user yet to my chagrin) about this issue. She was aghast about the local scoping of `for` in v1.0 😃, but interestingly she had no problem with function scoping. She said, “you guys have to change that… to hell with semver promises - just explain it!”

(minor edits)

---

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