Maybe you can be a bit more explicit in what you mean, examples would help too.
The only bit of the scoping rules which I find a bit questionable is that functions in a local scope have soft-scope (otherwise they have hard-scope). This has been discussed on github, search for "nonlocal". On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 11:16, Didier Verna <did...@didierverna.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm quite puzzled by the complication of Julia's scoping rules, and in > particular this way of constantly and implicitly mixing binding and > assignment, with varying semantics according to the context. > > The manual is not convincing (at least to me) in justifying what's > happening. Most of the scoping behavior looks like a big DWIM machinery > which is evil. > > What's the history behind all this? Technical debt? Inspiration from > other languages (certainly not Scheme!)? Actual, arbitrary design > decisions? > > Thank you!
