Hello all! Thank you for the RFC, it has been missing for many years. If I understand correctly, are you proposing to call `unset` at the end of the block?
I see that the **Future Scope** section mentions `Disposable`. But if your goal is to introduce behavior based on `Disposable`, wouldn’t that conflict with the logic of the current RFC? I see a clear pitfall here. If you accept this RFC with the `unset` operation, you will later need a new keyword for `Disposal`, because these are two entirely different scenarios. (Should I explain why?) In this context, I also see a problem, as if the RFC is trying to introduce two different features into the language: 1. **Scope** – a visibility area. It is the scope that has the `unset` logic. 2. **Using** – a guaranteed call of a disposal function. Because of this, logical issues are likely to arise. If the RFC’s goal is unclear and it tries to cover both tasks, the solution risks losing its clarity. P.S. Regarding the questions in the Open Issues, option A seems to have more explicit behavior than option B. --- Best Regards, Ed
