I'm actually here and investing the time to discuss with you. Please respect that.
I respect that but...
Please explain this in more detail. What are concrete practical benefits of doing this, other than for some fuzzy feeling of orthogonality/symmetry for the grammar police? What checks or features do you envision on top of this?
More syntactical features also make a language harder to read, and thus increase failure rate, specially for rarely used constructs like this. So I would wager it is is a net loss.
The answer to your concerns is very simple and, it is shown quite well by the fact that the language allows defining a group of variables of the same type. i.e,
var
VariableA, VariableB : TSOME_TYPE;
With that mechanism the language ensures that 2 or more variables that must be of the same type are declared in a group all having the same type. If that feature wasn't there and 2 or more variables had to be of same type then, ensuring they are of the same type would require the programmer to inspect every variable declaration to ensure they are of the same type and, if during maintenance, a programmer changes the type of one variable, it would not be obvious that the types of the other variables also has to be changed. That is a problem.
Exactly the same reasons apply to group initialization. Group initialization is _not_ about mere syntax and embellishments. It's about the language having a mechanism to declare that two or more variables should have the same initial state thereby relieving the programmer from having to inspect and update the initial state of multiple variables which makes it a distinct possibility that one or more will be omitted by mistake.
Hundreds of little things like that are what makes language definition standards useful. Unless I am mistaken, the extended Pascal standard includes group variable initialization. Also, symmetry, which you seem to deride, isn't just something "nice to have", when implementing symmetry is not possible it often indicates a problem in the design.