> What you actually should deliver is an implementation where each time around the loop there's a new variable named Goose, that variable goes away at the end of that iteration and will be replaced by the next one, with the same exact name.

Is this because a closure inside a loop will capture a reference to `Goose`?

I think that this is a capture problem not a variable problem. The closure should always do the right thing and capture the value of all variables (not just ones inside the loop), instead of capturing the reference to the variables.

Then the general problem is fixed to match what developers expect, instead of a specific instance of that class of problems being fixed and working differently to how other captured variables work.