Hm. None of the distinctions brought up so far really hit true with me (though they all are part of the picture). For example, I think the distinction between type(x) and x.__class__ is rarely significant -- I bet that if anyone were to rely on this they'd first have to change a lot of code that used one or the other without much thinking about the difference. So we might as well consider these equivalent. Part of the distinction is probably just in historical usage -- many idioms hark back to when there *was* a difference. If I had to invent an artificial difference, I'd say that I use "type" when talking about the type as a fairly abstract concept, such as the type of a variable (which may be required to be in a given set, for example), whereas I'll say "class" when I'm interested in the class as an object, or its definition (through a class statement). So, if I'm going to ask for the name, the phrase "the name of the class" rolls easier off my tongue than "the name of the type". OTOH if I'm going to just assert set membership, I might slightly prefer "x's type must be int or str". It's clear that we ought to at least cross-link the two glossary entries and point out that they are the same concept (type(x) vs. x.__class__) notwithstanding. I don't think it's important to try and eradicate the word type from our conversation or our docs -- so no sweeping global changes, please. However, if you come across a use of either one in the docs that seems odd given modern usage, feel free to clean it up, perhaps after checking with someone else to make sure your intuition matches that of others. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)