> this issue would have arisen when using capture-by-reference I understand - but in those languages capture-by-reference has to be an explicit choice (by writ

> this issue would have arisen when using capture-by-reference I understand - but in those languages capture-by-reference has to be an explicit choice (by writing the &) rather than the default, which highlights the actual behaviour. The problem with the old Go solution was that it would apparently behave as capture by reference without any explicit syntactic marker that it is so, and without a more natural alternative that captures by value, in a context where from other languages you would expect that the capture would happen by value. > Common Lisp and Scheme I have to admit I haven't worked in either outside of a tutorial setting, but my understanding is that they are quite well-known for having design choices in variable scoping that are unusual and frowned upon in modern language design > Ocaml Your example shows that it captures by value as I said, right? For it to work as the old Go examples, i would have to be a ref cell whose contents are updated between iterations, which is not how the semantics of for work. If it did, you'd have to use the loop counter as !i.