docs: improve doctests for complex number typed arrays in constants

[anandkaranubc]

Progresses #4833
Resolves stdlib-js/metr-issue-tracker#521

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• improve doctests for complex number instances in constants

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• [RFC]: Improve doctests for complex number typed arrays in documentation examples (tracking issue) #4833
• [RFC]: improve doctests for complex number typed arrays in @stdlib/constants metr-issue-tracker#521

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

Used a Cursor driven Skill+Workflow to achieve this migration with manual and automated sanity checks.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
constants/complex128/nan	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}0/0$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$
constants/complex128/zero	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}0/0$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$
constants/complex64/nan	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}0/0$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$
constants/complex64/zero	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}0/0$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}50/50$ $\color{green}+100.00%$

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

[anandkaranubc]

@kgryte I would still need your opinion on whether this is the right change to make. Our README files currently have slightly different code snippets than the index.js example files. This was present before too, mainly with the console.log statements being absent in the README example snippets.

Should I keep them both exactly the same as we usually do? If yes, should both follow the index.js file format?

[kgryte]

@anandkaranubc It is not uncommon for our index.js and README files to differ in this one particular way. For READMEs, it is okay to rely on doctests; while in index.js files, we always log. No need to change in this PR.

We could revisit, but the mantra of always the exact same example is not always the case, even if generally true.