docs: improve doctests for ndarray instances in ndarray/some-by

[kaushal-kumar-it]

---

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: passed
• 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: passed
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---

Progresses #9329.

Description

This pull request updates documentation examples in the @stdlib/ndarray/some-by package to improve doctests for ndarray instances, in accordance with the RFC guidance.

Specifically, this PR:

• Replaces explicit ndarray element access and decomposition logic with ndarray instance return notation (e.g., <ndarray>[ ... ])
• Updates examples to supply predicate functions where required so doctests execute successfully
• Removes no-longer-needed decomposition code while preserving the original example behavior and intent
• Makes changes only within this package, without altering example semantics or introducing unrelated modifications

These updates improve clarity, consistency, and alignment with recent doctest framework capabilities.

Related Issues

• [RFC]: Improve doctests for ndarray instances in documentation examples (tracking issue) #9329

Questions

No.

Other

No additional information.

Checklist

• 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

---

@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
ndarray/some-by	$\color{green}592/592$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}80/80$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}592/592$ $\color{green}+100.00%$

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

[Lokeshranjan8]

Thanks for the PR! I don’t think we need to update anything in index.js here, right @kgryte ?

[Lokeshranjan8]

include [ true ] here

[Lokeshranjan8]

return is missing here