# New scope solution

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-scope-solution/16707>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** proposal\
**Created:** [October 23, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-scope-solution/16707 "2018-10-23T20:58:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 218

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tkf](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tkf/32/17635_2.png) [@tkf](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tkf)\
**Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 10:08pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-scope-solution/16707/218 "2019-01-29T22:08:18Z")

</div>

In Julia, a `let` acts like “non-repeated” `for` instead of an IEFE. See:

> [@Another possible solution to the global scope debacle](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/106):
>
> 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.

So, the rule for `for` applies to `let` as well.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-scope-solution/16707)._