+1 to "type hint" for referring to hinting that something has a particular type, and "type" for referring to a... type.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:27 AM Jack McCluskey via dev <dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: > I'm in agreement that how we refer to type hints in documentation should > be standardized across the board. It's a good practice for both style and > clarity. Seems like it wouldn't be too hard to update our docstrings > either, based on a quick search of the repo. > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:00 AM Brian Hulette via dev <dev@beam.apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> In a recent code review we noticed that we are not consistent when >> describing python type hints in documentation. Depending on who wrote the >> patch, we switch between typehint, type-hint, and "type hint" [1]. >> >> I think we should standardize on "type hint" as this is what Guido used >> in PEP 484 [2]. Please comment on the issue in the next few days if you >> disagree with this approach. >> >> Note this is orthogonal to how we refer to type hints in _code_, in our >> public APIs. In general we use "type" in that context (e.g. >> `with_input_types`), and there doesn't seem to be a consistency issue. >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/23950 >> [2] https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ >> >
