without changing its meaning, which facilitates a number of common idioms in the language using closures (see do blocks). Let's move onto some more ambiguous cases covered by the soft scope rule. We'll usually not important, and is only detectable in the case of variables that outlive their scope via closures. The let syntax accepts a comma-separated series of assignments and variable names: julia> x, 3 julia> Fs[2]() 3 Here we create and store two closures that return variable i. However, it is always the same variable i, so the two closures behave identically. We can use let to create a new binding

without changing its meaning, which facilitates a number of common idioms in the language using closures (see do blocks). Let's move onto some more ambiguous cases covered by the soft scope rule. We'll usually not important, and is only detectable in the case of variables that outlive their scope via closures. The let syntax accepts a comma-separated series of assignments and variable names: julia> x, 3 julia> Fs[2]() 3 Here we create and store two closures that return variable i. However, it is always the same variable i, so the two closures behave identically. We can use let to create a new binding

without changing its meaning, which facilitates a number of common idioms in the language using closures (see do blocks). Let's move onto some more ambiguous cases covered by the soft scope rule. We'll usually not important, and is only detectable in the case of variables that outlive their scope via closures. The let syntax accepts a comma-separated series of assignments and variable names:CHAPTER 11. 3 julia> Fs[2]() 3 Here we create and store two closures that return variable i. However, it is always the same variable i, so the two closures behave identically. We can use let to create a new binding

without changing its meaning, which facilitates a number of common idioms in the language using closures (see do blocks). Let's move onto some more ambiguous cases covered by the soft scope rule. We'll usually not important, and is only detectable in the case of variables that outlive their scope via closures. The let syntax accepts a comma-separated series of assignments and variable names:CHAPTER 11. 3 julia> Fs[2]() 3 Here we create and store two closures that return variable i. However, it is always the same variable i, so the two closures behave identically. We can use let to create a new binding

without changing its meaning, which facilitates a number of common idioms in the language using closures (see do blocks). Let's move onto some more ambiguous cases covered by the soft scope rule. We'll usually not important, and is only detectable in the case of variables that outlive their scope via closures. The let syntax accepts a comma-separated series of assignments and variable names:CHAPTER 11. 3 julia> Fs[2]() 3 Here we create and store two closures that return variable i. However, it is always the same variable i, so the two closures behave identically. We can use let to create a new binding

without changing its meaning, which facilitates a number of common idioms in the language using closures (see do blocks). Let's move onto some more ambiguous cases covered by the soft scope rule. We'll usually not important, and is only detectable in the case of variables that outlive their scope via closures. The let syntax accepts a comma-separated series of assignments and variable names:CHAPTER 11. 3 julia> Fs[2]() 3 Here we create and store two closures that return variable i. However, it is always the same variable i, so the two closures behave identically. We can use let to create a new binding

generic func�ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184 Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . reason to allow modifying local variables of parent scopes in nested func�ons is to allow construc�ng closures which have private state, for instance the state variable in the following example: julia> let = 0 global counter() = (state += 1) end; julia> counter() 1 julia> counter() 2 See also the closures in the examples in the next two sec�ons. A variable, such as x in the first example and state in

generic func�ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148 Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . reason to allow modifying local variables of parent scopes in nested func�ons is to allow construc�ng closures which have private state, for instance the state variable in the following example: julia> let = 0 global counter() = (state += 1) end; julia> counter() 1 julia> counter() 2 See also the closures in the examples in the next two sec�ons. A variable, such as x in the first example and state in

generic func�ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146 Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . reason to allow modifying local variables of parent scopes in nested func�ons is to allow construc�ng closures which have a private state, for instance the state variable in the following example: julia> let = 0 global counter() = (state += 1) end; julia> counter() 1 julia> counter() 2 See also the closures in the examples in the next two sec�ons. A variable, such as x in the first example and state in

generic func�ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186 Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . reason to allow modifying local variables of parent scopes in nested func�ons is to allow construc�ng closures which have private state, for instance the state variable in the following example: julia> let = 0 global counter() = (state += 1) end; julia> counter() 1 julia> counter() 2 See also the closures in the examples in the next two sec�ons. A variable, such as x in the first example and state in