I agree. Would be nice to be able to apply a different color to type hints. I get the impression a lot of people like them to be just regular code. I'm fine with that as the default, but would be nice to add an extra label so some of us can for example make all type hints semi-transparent.

There are also the type hints on function defs. And they very much deserve some highlighting.

def fun_func(
    big_param: Set[Tuple[int, int]],
    generic_param: List[T],
) -> Mapping[str, T]: ...

Type annotations of the attributes of a dataclass need proper highlighting as well:

Number = Union[int, float]
@dataclass(frozen=True)
class SomeClass:
    foo: Generator[AnyStr, Number, None] = field(hash=False)
    bar: Iterable[T] = field(compare=False)
    amount: Number = -1

When using generic types (typevar) on classes (inheriting from it), no highlighting appears.

V = TypeVar("V", FirstType, SomeOtherType)
E = TypeVar("E")

class StopIgnoringMe(Generic[V, E], ParentClass):
    pass

class NormalInheritance(ParentClass):
    pass

I'll see what I can do to highlight type hints better. I guess the starting point would be to at least give them all a scope of their own like meta.typehint.python.

@vpetrovykh do you need help with the issue?

It appears Github's highlighting decided that everything that starts with a capital letter deserves that same color.
I'm still inclined towards having separate scopes for typehints and for normal classes, so we can choose different colors.

I'd also like to have a separate scope for type hints.
I was writing some type hints in Django Models (so the fields show up as the real type and not the orm field type), but it made the code look ugly since the variable and the type hint and the field class name where all white, you couldn't easily see where the type hint ends and where the orm field class starts!
For now I settled for using # type comments instead since these do have their own scope and look better at the end of the line (I made the semi-transparent).