# 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:** 212

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![haberdashPI](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/haberdashpi/32/26337_2.png) [@haberdashPI](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/haberdashPI)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2018, 8:28pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/212 "2018-10-10T20:28:08Z")

</div>

@Balance: Your proposal seems like a fairly fundamental shift in language semantics. It reminds me of the [discussion here](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/explicit-denotation-of-variability-and-immutability/8686) about introducing new language constructs for immutability. (It also raises the idea of using `:=`). It might be worth reading through that to see what some of the designers of Julia have to say about that.

I am mostly a spectator, but I suspect such a change is unlikely to be considered by the core devs, in part because (IIUC) it would break so much existing code.

---

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