# 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:** 35

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![foobar\_lv2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@foobar\_lv2](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/foobar_lv2)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 10:04am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-scope-solution/16707/35 "2018-10-24T10:04:54Z")

</div>

Error messages: [https://discourse.julialang.org/t/improving-error-messages-for-the-scoping-problem/16209](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/improving-error-messages-for-the-scoping-problem/16209).

Remember, the local/global decision for variables does not happen at runtime, it happens at compile-time (I think early in lowering?). I think Stefan’s solution is to follow unconditional `@goto` and always follow both branches (even for literal `if false`). So it would fix the following example:

```julia
julia> dead=true;
julia> let 
           @show dead
           @goto skip
           dead = false
           @label skip
       end
ERROR: UndefVarError: dead not defined

```

but not

```julia
julia> dead=true;
julia> let 
           @show dead
           if true @goto skip end
           dead = false
           @label skip
       end
ERROR: UndefVarError: dead not defined

```

The rule would be: Follow all pathes (without evaluating known conditionals). If there exists a write before read path, then the variable defaults to local. Otherwise, it defaults to global.

As a side note: The `while` gets evaluated in the outer scope, not the inner scope. That is probably confusing for some people as well:

```julia
julia> m=4; n=2; i=1; while i>0
       i = n
       @show i, n
       global m -= 1
       global n -= 1
       @show m,n
       m>0 || break
       end; @show m, n, i
(i, n) = (2, 2)
(m, n) = (3, 1)
(i, n) = (1, 1)
(m, n) = (2, 0)
(i, n) = (0, 0)
(m, n) = (1, -1)
(i, n) = (-1, -1)
(m, n) = (0, -2)
(m, n, i) = (0, -2, 1)

```

So, regardless of this scoping, a minimally invasive (very non-optimizing) `@code_semilowered` that produces valid julia source code with only `let` blocks and `@goto` would be nice for that. It would also teach people about the iterator interface.

---

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