types(cosmo): vectorize_redshift_method - #18801

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

CI failure appears to be unrelated.

Thanks @neutrinoceros for reviewing the preceding PR.

Could do, but this is the standard way to build a decorator with keyword arguments (e.g. https://realpython.com/primer-on-python-decorators/#creating-decorators-with-optional-arguments tutorial), so this is a pretty standard type annotation pattern.
That being said, I think vectorize_redshift_method is only ever used as a decorator, so it could be refactored accordingly. Could be worth it. Small speedup to module load time 🤔

Refactoring changes application of vectorize_redshift_method from @vectorize_redshift_method to @ vectorize_redshift_method(), which is a little non-standard.

@neutrinoceros WDYT of the new decorator? Refactoring changes application of vectorize_redshift_method from @vectorize_redshift_method to @ vectorize_redshift_method(), which is a little non-standard.

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 4 months. I plan to close this in 30 days if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

Ping @neutrinoceros. I'll rebase if it looks good.

Ping @neutrinoceros for thoughts. I'm still not sold on the @decorator() versus @decorator.

I'm going to close this pull request as per my previous message. If you think what is being added/fixed here is still important, please remember to open an issue to keep track of it. Thanks!

If this is the first time I am commenting on this issue, or if you believe I closed this issue incorrectly, please report this here.

ah, well, feel free to re-open this

Re-opening and rebasing!