Mmm. The original comment asked for "Pascal-style enums". Those are different from C enums: they are incompatible with integers and other enums, they don't support arithmetic operations (you have to use succ()/pred() built-ins) and they contain precisely the named values (calling e.g. succ() one too many times is supposed to be a runtime-detected range error). Plus, enums being ordinal types, you could use them as array indices in type definitions, like "array[Kind] of real" (so effectively, enum range checks and array boundary checks implemented by the same mechanism).
So that's what I went with, because I actually liked Pascal-style enums but thought they could be somewhat improved, so what you've read is my ideas (Go is surprisingly close to Oberon and both lack enums).
The original comment asked for enumerations. Despite him not realizing, Go has those. It has a relatively unique syntax for defining enums, sure, but enumerations are not defined by specific syntax. They are a higher level concept that transcends any specific syntax implementation.
The original comment also hinted at wanting other features that some other languages have, including Pascal, although not stating which features specifically. I expect he was referring to wanting some kind of constraint system, which is the most common feature I hear requested of Go. But that's beyond the scope of enumerations.
So that's what I went with, because I actually liked Pascal-style enums but thought they could be somewhat improved, so what you've read is my ideas (Go is surprisingly close to Oberon and both lack enums).