docs: improve doctests for complex number instances in array/complex64

[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: na
• task: lint_package_json
  status: na
• task: lint_repl_help
  status: na
• 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: passed
• task: lint_license_headers
  status: passed

---

Resolves part of #8641

Description

This pull request updates documentation examples for array/complex64 to use complex number instance notation (e.g., <Complex64>[ 2.0, -2.0 ]) instead of decomposing values using realf and imagf, 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

Updated the example by replacing realf(v) and imagf(v) with v.re and v.im, and switched to complex instance notation to match the RFC guidelines. I’ve submitted this PR for initial review, and after it is approved I will apply the same updates to the remaining few examples in this package. ## Other

No.

Checklist

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

• No
• Yes

Disclosure

N/A

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
array/complex64	$\color{red}3087/3097$ $\color{green}+99.68%$	$\color{red}526/534$ $\color{green}+98.50%$	$\color{green}54/54$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{red}3087/3097$ $\color{green}+99.68%$

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

[stdlib-bot]

⚠️ Tracking Issue Closure Warning ⚠️

I noticed your PR description contains closing keywords ("Resolves", "Closes", or "Fixes") referencing a "Tracking Issue".

Why this matters:
Tracking issues should typically remain open until all related sub-issues are completed. GitHub automatically closes issues with such closing keywords when the PR is merged. For more information, see GitHub's documentation on using keywords in issues and pull requests.

Required action:
Use "Progresses" instead to reference the tracking issue without automatically closing it.

Thank you for your contribution to the project!