Skip to content

Introduce "type names" section to the style guide #1828

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
sirosen wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Introduce "type names" section to the style guide #1828

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8935bce
Introduce "type names" section to the style guide
sirosen Jun 7, 2026
1328257
Apply suggestion from @StanFromIreland
sirosen Jun 7, 2026
3c5e2c7
Move "specific words" and "type names" down in page
sirosen Jun 11, 2026
e0faa0c
Add explicit anchor for style-guide links section
sirosen Jun 12, 2026
81deaa3
Make the style-guide 'links' ref more usable
sirosen Jun 12, 2026
86a969f
Reframe type names guide to allow more judgement
sirosen Jun 30, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 21 additions & 0 deletions documentation/style-guide.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -116,6 +116,27 @@ Unix
1970s.


Type names
==========

When writing the names of types in prose, write the name of the type
exactly as it appears in source, styled as a class reference or an unlinked
class. For example, refer to dict as ``:class:`dict`‌`` or ``:class:`!dict`‌``.

Links should be used according to the :ref:`guidance on links <links>`.

@StanFromIreland StanFromIreland Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 

/home/runner/work/devguide/devguide/documentation/style-guide.rst:155: WARNING: undefined label: 'links' [ref.ref]

@sirosen sirosen Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't that link to the section title? I feel certain that this worked for me.

I just added an explicit anchor, on the assumption that I got confused and forgot how sphinx handles section-names.

@StanFromIreland StanFromIreland Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't that link to the section title?

You have a :ref:, not a regular link `guidance on links `_ (I don't remember if we still need the #) is what you're thinking about

I'm +1 for an explicit reference however, I think it's far more future proof. But can we rename it to something a little more useful, like links-style-guide.

@sirosen sirosen Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, so that we can use it from outside of the style-guide! Yes, I like that, but mildly prefer style-guide-links (namespace first).

I've added a co-authored commit. 🙂


Some type names are commonly understood ideas or nouns outside of Python.
For example, "tuples" are a general programming concept, as distinct from the
``tuple`` type. When referring to general ideas, do not style the relevant word
as a type.

Many types have descriptive names which do not exactly match their type
name. For example, "context variables" describes ``contextvars.ContextVar``,
and "partial function" may be used to describe an application of
``functools.partial``. Use these names only when they serve to clarify the text
better than the type name itself would, and put them in lowercase.

@hugovk hugovk Jun 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suggest moving this entry after the simple language one, and perhaps also after the charged terminology one as well.

@sirosen sirosen Jun 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the "Specific words" section above it also move? I thought it made sense to put these together, and I still do. What would you say to moving both of these?

I could do it here (pragmatic and easy, but my least favorite way), do a precursor PR to move "Specific words" down, or do a follow-up PR.

@hugovk hugovk Jun 11, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Moving "Specific words" sounds okay to me, no preference whether in this PR or another.

@sirosen sirosen Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll do it here.

I'm used to smaller projects with relatively much more review bandwidth per PR. I'm adjusting a bit for cpython and related projects. 🙂

@sirosen sirosen Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

3c5e2c7 pushes them down, and as "proof" of my work making no other changes, the git diff selects the text which I did not cut-and-paste.

I did introduce one extra newline, which seemed like it was missing for a section-break.

@nedbat nedbat Jun 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In line with my comment on the issue, could we add:

Python classes can also be discussed not as linked classes, but as concepts or with descriptive names. For example, a long discussion of dictionaries won't use dict everywhere. Sometimes "dict" or "dictionary" will feel more natural. The author will need to exercise judgement when to use class links and when to use descriptive names.

@sirosen sirosen Jun 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with this proposed text, but feel that it has a degree of overlap with the last paragraph.

I'm going to try to integrate the two but intend to append this if I can't figure out a good combination.

@encukou encukou Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The style guide as a whole could use a PEP-8 style note:

know when to be inconsistent – sometimes style guide recommendations just aren’t applicable. When in doubt, use your best judgment. Look at other examples and decide what looks best. And don’t hesitate to ask!

Specifically for class names in long discussion, perhaps this could mirror the guidance on links. The first occurrence should use :class:; subsequent ones can use plain words if it's clear that it's still talking about the same thing.

@sirosen sirosen Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've made an edit to weave these suggestions into the text, which required a little tuning of the first paragraph in addition to a larger change to the last.

The part which is most different from Ned's suggestion is this:

Once it is clear that the text refers to a specific type, use the naming which suits the context: in the case of dict, any of "dict", "dictionary", or "``:class:`dict```" may be best.

I mean for that to carry the message about "the author will need to exercise judgement" as well as the idea that, like links, you should first clarify the exact type and then exercise more freedom in how you write.

I'm very concerned with brevity for these docs, so I was trying to pack the ideas in very tightly, in the smallest reasonable number of words.



Use simple language
===================

Expand Down
Loading