docs: improve doctests for complex number instances in math/base/special/ccis

[aryan7071]

---

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:

• task: lint_filenames status: passed
• task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
• task: lint_markdown status: passed
• task: lint_package_json status: na
• task: lint_repl_help status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_src status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
• task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
• task: lint_javascript_tests status: na
• task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_python status: na
• task: lint_r status: na
• task: lint_c_src status: na
• task: lint_c_examples status: na
• task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
• task: lint_shell status: na
• task: lint_typescript_declarations status: passed
• task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---

Resolves part of #8641

Description

This pull request updates documentation examples for math/base/special/ccis to use complex number instance notation (e.g., returns <Complex128>[ ~0.540, ~0.841 ]) instead of decomposing values using real and imag, in accordance with the RFC guidance.

No functional code changes were made. Only documentation examples were updated.

Related Issues

• [RFC]: Improve doctests for complex number instances in documentation examples (tracking issue) #8641

Questions

No.

Other

No.

Checklist

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

• No
• Yes

Disclosure

N/A

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Hello! 👋

We've noticed that you've been opening a number of PRs addressing good first issues. Thank you for your interest and enthusiasm!

Now that you've made a few contributions, we suggest no longer working on good first issues. Instead, we encourage you to prioritize cleaning up any PRs which have yet to be merged and then proceed to work on more involved tasks.

Not only does this ensure that other new contributors can work on things and get ramped up on all things stdlib, it also ensures that you can spend your time on more challenging problems. 🚀

For ideas for future PRs, feel free to search the codebase for TODOs and FIXMEs and be sure to check out other open issues on the issue tracker. Cheers!

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
math/base/special/ccis	$\color{green}198/198$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}6/6$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}2/2$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}198/198$ $\color{green}+100.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.