# Remove the soft scope altogether and make it global

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/remove-the-soft-scope-altogether-and-make-it-global/33333>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** proposal, scope\
**Created:** [January 14, 2020, 6:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/remove-the-soft-scope-altogether-and-make-it-global/33333 "2020-01-14T06:41:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tamas\_Papp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tamas_papp/32/25949_2.png) [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)\
**Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 10:26am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/remove-the-soft-scope-altogether-and-make-it-global/33333/8 "2020-01-14T10:26:35Z")

</div>

> [@heliosdrm](#):
>
> _“are Python scoping rules acceptable for Julia?”_ , and development decisions would be simpler to make.

You may find this relevant:

> [@New scope solution](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-scope-solution/16707/172):
>
> I want to underline this. There are a lot of people here talking about this as if the ≤ 0.6 behavior was perfect and everyone wishes that we could go back to it. That’s certainly a valid point of view–after all, there’s a reason we chose the behavior the way we did originally—but it’s not one that is universally shared at all. There are many issues with the old behavior. There are several different desirable criteria for scoping rules that do not seem to all be satisfiable at the same time: s…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/remove-the-soft-scope-altogether-and-make-it-global/33333)._