A "static local variable" is exactly the same as a typed const in{$J+} mode. It is just semantics. Shut up
It's exactly the same, but the syntax is highly misleading. One of Pascals strength is it's readability. And this is a huge negative example that I would rather expect in C (no insult). And I really think this is a quirk that should be cleaned up. It's not an other call for a fancy new feature, it's just to remove the skeleton from the closet.
6. I'd wish for static local variables to replace the misleading writable typed constant stuff (the latter should be default off in mode objfpc). [...]
No. There is a way to declare such a variable and thus there won't be another as unintuitive as the existing way may seem.
The problem is less the unintuitive usage, but (as stated above) the bad readibility. I would nobody recommend to use a writable typed constant because of that and I also never use it myself.
It's also easy to draw wrong conclusions. Lately I translated a unit from C with typed constants, using the typed constant syntax was a mistake I made just because of the misleading syntax. A (ugly) typecast in the constant would have been the correct way.
In Delphi as far as I know the writable typed constant is disabled by default, but I'm not sure (don't have Delphi).
7. I'd wish for a placeholder for the left side of an assignment that can be used in the right side. A suitable keyword could be "this". [...]
No.
And at least for cases that don't involve properties you can use the C-style operators or for CallCount you could simply use Inc as well.
The c-style operators are very ugly, so I wouldn't use it. I think a "this"-syntax would be very pascal'ish and very readable.
Lately when programming for a microcontroller I had a lot of statements like the following to access hardware registers, the register name mostly has to be repeated, as only some bits are to be changed. There the "this"-syntax would be very helpful.
// Enable clocks
RCC.APB2PCENR:= RCC.APB2PCENR or RCC_AFIOEN or RCC_IOPBEN or RCC_USART1EN;
The c-style doesn't work here (and I wouldn't us it anyways). But repeating the register name is error-prone when doing copy and past as there are often very similar names like RCC.APB1PCENR and RCC.APB2PCENR.