@davecheney If you were to do that then you couldn't also document each one individually, e.g.

var (
	// X...
	X int

	// Y...
	Y
)

The two forms of declaration aren't equivalent, so I don't think redundancy is a concern here.

You could similarly just write:

var x int
var y int

instead of:

var x, y int

so why not drop that superfluous syntax? In my opinion, this falls under the concerns of clarity and consistency of expression.

Example of exported use:

var (
	// Dry...
	Dry bool

	// Quiet...
	Quiet

	// Verbose...
	Verbose

	// Sudo...
	Sudo

	// Home...
	Home string

	// User...
	User

	// Host...
	Host

	// ...
)

Example of unexported use:

var (
	i int // i...
	j     // j...
	k     // k...

	x float64 // x...
	y         // y...
	z         // z...

	// ...
)

Along that same consistency line, it seems to me that it would actually simplify the language if the syntax were even more similar for both constant and variable blocks.

I don't think I'm making that mistake; this is the first time you've mentioned that concern. Regarding readability, it seems to me that both constant and variable block declarations can have types, so if it makes sense to have "stamped" types for constants, I don't see why it doesn't make sense for variables too. Is there a reason you can think of to treat them differently in this respect? It seems like the only difference between the two syntaxes should be initialization.

Good point, I can see that. I wonder whether it would be useful at all for var block decls to have type/expr "stamps" too, but that's a separate issue.

Can anyone help me out this is too smart for me

@Allthewaylive247 What do you mean?