updating style doc for list parameter

[robotjellyzone]

Fixes #181

Fix done: Updated the user guide of contribution code to adjust new style following type hints

[robotjellyzone]

@lilyminium @micaela-matta can you please once check this pr and let me know if any changes are needed:)

[lilyminium]

Thanks for opening this PR, @robotjellyzone. I see that you've added in type hinting into the example -- could you please also add some text explicitly requesting that people follow type hinting recommendations?

And, ah... @PicoCentauri, did we settle on a style for type hinting? It seems to me that we will have to stick with old style List[int] for a while yet. Even the linked PEP 484 https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ shows that syntax.

[robotjellyzone]

Thanks for opening this PR, @robotjellyzone. I see that you've added in type hinting into the example -- could you please also add some text explicitly requesting that people follow type hinting recommendations?

And, ah... @PicoCentauri, did we settle on a style for type hinting? It seems to me that we will have to stick with old style List[int] for a while yet. Even the linked PEP 484 https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ shows that syntax.

@lilyminium i have added the note requesting to follow type hints. please check & let me know for any further changes:)

[PicoCentauri]

And, ah... @PicoCentauri, did we settle on a style for type hinting? It seems to me that we will have to stick with old style List[int] for a while yet. Even the linked PEP 484 https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ shows that syntax.

list[int] only works for python versions larger or equal to 3.9. With this, we have to stick to the old syntax (List[int]) for actual type hinting until we support older versions. In the docs however only list[int] links everything nicely. I have no clue if we should use different syntax in the docs and the type hint? Regardless of our decision, we should make this very clear in the userGuide!

[micaela-matta]

Thanks!

[robotjellyzone]

And @lilyminium can you please check this pr?

[micaela-matta]

And @lilyminium can you please check this pr?

Please be patient and stop repeatedly tagging. Be respectful of our free labor: It’s a public holiday weekend and we do this in our free time. Your request is not urgent and will be dealt with when possible.

[robotjellyzone]

And @lilyminium can you please check this pr?

Please be patient and stop repeatedly tagging. Be respectful of our free labor: It’s a public holiday weekend and we do this in our free time. Your request is not urgent and will be dealt with when possible.

Oh so sorry for that!! Yeah actually I knew that I should not tag again but actually you set the deadline yesterday that after 17th no pr will be considered so that's why it was a bit stressing. I hope you can understand and I didn't actually mean to disturb 🙏🏻.
.
I myself have been a mentor and I know its stressing sometimes but when it's deadline then everyone hurries which I know very well but still sorry if it hurt you in anyway!

[micaela-matta]

Don’t worry, the warning was mainly meant for people just starting new PRs not for the ones that are mostly done!

[lilyminium]

Thanks for adding the note, @robotjellyzone. Unfortunately as hinted in the question I asked here: #200 (comment), the style is actually a little more nuanced than that, so it warrants a bit more detail. I've suggested what I think is the best temporary solution below. @MDAnalysis/coredevs if you have different ideas, please comment :)

[lilyminium]

Also please add yourself to AUTHORS here as well :)

[orbeckst]

@lilyminium this is a pretty old PR. Is it still relevant or should we close it?