# Why not an even-harder scope?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Created:** [November 13, 2020, 10:57am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087 "2020-11-13T10:57:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 22

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Benny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/49beb7/32.png) [@Benny](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Benny)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2020, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087/22 "2020-11-18T16:59:23Z")

</div>

I noticed that @A_Dent kept saying “closure capture the value”, but just to make sure, closures captures _variables_, not the objects, right (the docs seem to say so)? If they captured objects, it doesn’t seem like you even need scopes and new variables each iteration to avoid the repeated value bug, you could just inline the integers into the function.  
Now that I think of it, why don’t closures capture values instead of variables?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087)._