[drkevorkian]

This would be a backwards incompatible change that would cause a lot of issues. For instance, you are not allowed to compare naive and non-naive datetimes, so for instance, `utcnow() > datetime(2023, 11, 19)` would work before, but break following your change.

[akersten]

Removing the functions wholesale isn't a backwards incompatible change?

[ollien]

It is one that can be found via static analysis. That may not be true if behavior is changed. In some cases, this may be "ok" (see: Go's recent loop changes), but in others, it may not.

[IshKebab]

Most Python users don't do any form of static analysis though, so both changes would only be found at runtime.

But I think changing the behaviour and not the name is still a very bad idea.

[kevincox]

Yes, but "Unknown function datetime.utcnow" is much easier to diagnose than somewhere in your application, possibly inside a third-party library or maybe even in a different service altogether (because the change traversed serialization and deserilialization) throwing an exception because you can't compare two datetimes.

[ak217]

Breaking following the change is fine. Silently changing the behavior in a way that could cause catastrophic bugs is not.

That's why the suggestion to just keep the functions and change their behavior is naive. It would obviously be very unsafe to do so.

[BugsJustFindMe]

That's going to break following this change anyway.

[sanderjd]

But in a much more obvious way. Noisy errors are better than quiet inaccuracy.

They screwed up these methods from the start, and removing them is the only way to get rid of the confusion, without introducing subtle breakage.

[BugsJustFindMe]

It would still be a noisy error, just a different one that you can't compare non-naive and naive datetimes.

[sanderjd]

Unless you never compare it anywhere. Whereas it fails immediately if you try to do `datetime.utcnow` and that method doesn't exist.