TypeScript type naming convention - Should WP be prefixed to types?

[johnhooks]

I am working on adding types to @wordpress/blocks in PR #48604. A question that has come up, what is the convention regarding prefixing type names with WP? Module scoping prevents type names from clashing, and not all packages in Gutenberg prefix types with WP.

• The current JSDocs of @wordpress/blocks make reference to type declarations that do use the prefix and moving away from it would require updating documentation in other packages. Though since types would be new to @wordpress/blocks, no other packages depend on the WP prefixed names.

• The types exported by the DefinitelyTyped package @types/wordpress__blocks don't prefix the type names.

How should the types be named in @wordpress/blocks? More generally, is there a convention for type names and is it documented some where?

Vote here with a 👍 for keeping the WP prefix and a 👎 for getting rid of the WP prefix.

[johnhooks]

CC @ryanwelcher @dmsnell @adamziel @sirreal

[dmsnell]

I've long found the WP prefix odd and unnecessary. By nature of being in the WP packages they are already namespaced.

I'm quite happy with removing the prefixes, so this is my vote.

[johnhooks]

I would also vote to drop the prefix. (Though not entirely sure I'm a voting member lol)

[sirreal]

I don't see any benefit to having a WP prefix on types. I do see a drawback that the prefix adds noise making it harder to read the type name.

My vote would be to remove the prefix.

[dmsnell]

Added a suggestion to vote in the description at the top. cc: @johnhooks and @sirreal in case you want to pile on to the voting.