For me, Python 3k appears to be a natural place to do this. Python 3 still appears to be regarded as a work-in-progress by most people, and I don't think that it's 'too late' to change for Python 3k.
Fortunately you're not Guido, and fortunately this isn't going to happen. I recommend you either accept that this behaviour is here to stay, or if you're *particularly* enamoured of late evaluation behaviour of defaults, that you work on some sort of syntax to make it optional.
Thank you for the rest of the email, which was (by and large) well-considered and (mostly) stuck to the points of the matter. I will get to them in proper time when I have been able to add to the argument in a considered way after fully understanding your points.
However, this last section really got under my skin. It seems completely inappropriate to devolve any well-intentioned email discussion into an appalling self-service ad-hominem attack. Your assertion of your ethical viewpoint (use of Fortunately without a backing argument), attempt to bully me out of my position (recomment you accept this behaviour is here to stay) are not appreciated. You have *your* view of what is fortunate, right and appropriate. I took every care NOT to assert my own viewpoint as universally true; you have not done so.
Guido is just a person, as you are just a person, as I am just a person. Can we not please just stick to a simple, civilised discussion of the point without trying to win cheap debating points or use the "Zen" of Python to denigrate people who have either genuinely failed to grasp some aspect of a concept, or whose intuition is simply different. Without people whose intuition is different, no advancement is possible. Without debate about what constitutes the "Zen" of Python, the "Zen" of Python must always be static, unchanging, unchallenged and therefore cannot grow. I do not think that is what anyone meant when they were penning the "Zen" of Python.
This list is not best-served by grandstanding. It may not even be best-served by the now effectively personal debate which you have drawn me into through your personalisation of the issue (I quote: "your understanding is weak"). Terms such as weak and strong are inherently laden with ethical and social overtones -- incomplete, misplaced, or any number of other qualifiers could have kept the debate to the factual level.