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

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