# 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:** 196

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tim.holy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tim.holy/32/52_2.png) [@tim.holy](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tim.holy)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2018, 11:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/196 "2018-10-08T23:14:37Z")

</div>

> I’m not sure there are any similar patterns that benefit from making more variables local inside `let` . Given that in general we default to overwriting variables in outer scopes, it can’t be all that important for `let` to be special here.

Well, doesn’t [this](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/152) count as an example? In particular, Rebugger cannot work in 0.6 or 0.7 (because of the scope deprecation) but it does in 1.0.

---

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