feat: add lapack/base/zlaswp

[aayush0325]

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• adds lapack/base/zlaswp

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

No.

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.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[aayush0325]

/stdlib update-copyright-years

[aayush0325]

@kgryte can you give this an initial review?

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
lapack/base/zlaswp	$\color{green}429/429$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}34/34$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}429/429$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$

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

[aayush0325]

ready for review @kgryte!

[aayush0325]

/stdlib update-copyright-years

[kgryte]

A few points:

1. You cannot use deepEqual to compare complex number arrays. deepEqual is provided by tape and doesn't know anything about complex number arrays. You need to use isSameComplex128Array.
2. You removed all the A_mat and A_mat_out fields from the test fixtures. The entire point of these fields is to provide a form of documentation within the test fixture files to help future readers have a better idea of what is going on. The *_mat* fields are a visual representation of the matrix from the perspective of the end user. Without these visual representations, a reader must perform mental gymnastics to translate the linear layout and its associated strides into a corresponding mental picture. You should aim to reduce this cognitive burden. In short, try to empathize with the future reader.

In this case, had you kept these representations, you'd have realized that some of your test fixtures were wrong and that the tests were not catching your mistakes.

These same comments apply to your other LAPACK PRs.

[kgryte]

One other comment. You tried to simplify examples with 2x2 matrices; however, you needed to think through a bit more what is implied when k1 = k2 = 0 and what then is needed from IPIV.

[aayush0325]

I've updated the test fixtures, added representation for input and output matrices and updated the examples for 2x2 matrices in docs/repl.txt. The main reason to keep such short examples was to avoid exceeding the 80 character limit in repl.txt. kindly let me know if there's anything that has to be changed

[aayush0325]

this one's ready for review @kgryte!

[kgryte]

LGTM after some minor clean-up. @aayush0325, would you mind making the small tweaks made here on your claswp PR? Thanks!

[aayush0325]

Thanks for the review @kgryte! making the changes in the other PR soon :))

[kgryte]

@aayush0325 Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your patience while I was heads down getting some other efforts to the starting line.