CC'ed to => for follow ups

Apart from the general yes/no question....
(and I haven't looked deep into language design..., still...)

If for arguments sake, it was a yes:

1) "begin/end" are compound statements, not scopes (even mentioned on the big forum thread)
2) If a "inline scope" existed, no mention of "inline var" only at the start thereof.
3) same keyword "var" but significant difference: block vs single statement (one var only)

Currently (not tested), but from description

    if foo then begin
       writeln;
       var bar: integer = 1; // mid (implied) scope
       readln;
     end;

So within the "for arguments sake", shouldn't it then be

    if foo then
       // optional introduction of new keyword to start scope
       var // "var" starts scope (and must be followed by "begin"
          bar: integer = 1;
          bar2: integer = 2;
      begin
         writeln;
         readln;
      end;

- Without a "scope keyword" => "var" starts the new scope. That scope covers the next statement  (which must be compound begin/end).
- var block ends at begin (which starts the statement for which the scope will last)

And the "for var i :=
is inconsistent. Its the only one that allows "var" mid-statement. (wel, its the only(?) LHS that can be mid statement...)

Any word on multi-line text blocks? ;-) Coming from Java, I so MISS that in Object Pascal! :-D

Aren't they in 3.3.1 already? And 2 forms? backtick and multi-single-quote?

And I completely missed "ref counted interfaces adhere to the sub-scope"

Only, wasn't it established, that the lifetime of those was not documented, and therefore it was ok that with FPC it was determined by "last use" rather than "end of procedure" (which used to cause some discussions too).

So, if "inline var" was copied, in FPC that life time wouldn't change... While Delphi now has some "not in the doc, but other" mention of this being a "suddenly valid" use case.