Skip to content

Conversation

dhanyabad11
Copy link
Contributor

This PR addresses the comments from commit 3ee60b4 and fixes the following issues:

Added missing Oxford commas in documentation files.
Fixed missing space between 1.0 and ).
Corrected sentence structure for clarity in documentation.
Fixed formatting inconsistency in src/main.c by ensuring proper spacing in expressions.
These changes improve code readability and documentation clarity. Let me know if any further modifications are needed. 🚀

@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Mar 9, 2025
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
datasets/sotu $\color{green}1725/1725$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}106/106$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}11/11$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}1725/1725$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
math/strided/special/dmskabs2 $\color{green}402/402$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}16/16$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}4/4$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}402/402$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
stats/base/dists/triangular/quantile $\color{green}363/363$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}35/35$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}4/4$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$
$\color{green}363/363$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$

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

@kgryte kgryte added the autoclose: Project Conventions Pull request which should be auto-closed due to not following project conventions. label Apr 30, 2025
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for working on this pull request. However, we cannot accept your contribution as this pull request does not follow project conventions.

We place a high value on consistency throughout the stdlib codebase, and this pull request was found to significantly deviate from stdlib conventions. We encourage you to closely examine other packages in stdlib and attempt to emulate the practices and conventions found therein.

  • If you are attempting to contribute a new package, sometimes the best approach is to simply copy the contents of an existing package and then modify the minimum amount necessary to implement the feature (e.g., changing descriptions, parameter names, and implementation).
  • If you are contributing tests, find a package implementing a similar feature and emulate the tests of that package.
  • If you are updating documentation, examine several similar packages and emulate the content, style, and prose of those packages.

In short, the more effort you put in to ensure that your contribution looks and feels like stdlib—including variables names, bracket spacing, line breaks, etc—the more likely that your contribution will be reviewed and ultimately accepted. We encourage you to closely study the codebase before continuing to work on this pull request.

Thank you again for your interest in stdlib, and we look forward to reviewing your future contributions.

@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot closed this Apr 30, 2025
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot removed the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Apr 30, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

autoclose: Project Conventions Pull request which should be auto-closed due to not following project conventions.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants