Description

Propagating fixes merged to develop between 2026-07-07 14:20 PDT (b5b7b4c) and 2026-07-08 01:31 PDT (bb93e56) to sibling packages carrying the same defect.

Pattern: logcdf description missing "natural logarithm" qualifier

Commit a3c9b30 corrected the JSDoc/JSDoc-in-C description in stats/base/dists/pareto-type1/logcdf where the sentence read "Evaluates the cumulative distribution function (CDF)" for a function that computes the natural logarithm of the CDF. The same defect is present in stats/base/dists/gumbel/logcdf/src/main.c — the sibling lib/main.js and header already carry the correct wording, so only the C source needs to be aligned.

• a3c9b30 (docs: update descriptions)
  • @stdlib/stats/base/dists/gumbel/logcdf (src/main.c)

Pattern: const-qualify read-only input arrays in number/* C examples

Commit 3fab81a added const to the input double x[] in number/float64/base/signbit's examples/c/example.c and README C snippet, matching the cppcheck lint that flags never-mutated arrays. Three sibling number/float{32,64}/base/* packages carry the same defect: the input array is iterated over and each element passed by value into a stdlib scalar-read call. const is added to examples/c/example.c for all three packages; the mirrored snippet in README.md is only updated for float64/base/to-words, where the surrounding JS example passes Lint Changed Files — the READMEs for the other two carry a pre-existing stdlib/doctest-marker violation on adjacent // => comments that surfaces the moment the file enters the changed-files set.

• 3fab81a (chore: fix C lint errors)
  • @stdlib/number/float64/base/exponent (examples/c/example.c only)
  • @stdlib/number/float64/base/to-words (examples/c/example.c + README.md)
  • @stdlib/number/float32/base/to-word (examples/c/example.c only)

Effective PR diff vs develop: 5 files, 5 LOC.

Related Issues

No.

Questions

The Run changed examples and Lint Changed Files jobs triggered by the push event on commit 1f85abc79 fail, but for a scope-of-comparison reason worth flagging to reviewers:

• run_affected_examples.yml computes changed files with git diff HEAD~ HEAD on push events. Commit 1f85abc79 is the revert that removed the two problematic READMEs (float32/base/to-word/README.md and float64/base/exponent/README.md) from the effective PR diff. Its HEAD~..HEAD delta is exactly those two README files, so the push-triggered run re-lints them and re-hits the pre-existing stdlib/doctest-marker violation on the adjacent // => markers — even though the effective diff vs develop no longer touches either README.
• The workflow's pull_request-triggered path (lines 118–121 of run_affected_examples.yml, merge-base to head) compares to the PR base, which excludes the reverted READMEs.

Should the two // => doctest-marker violations be normalized as a follow-up (either here or in a separate maintenance PR), the const propagation can be extended back to the two dropped READMEs. Not attempted in this PR because the source commit's mechanical shape is s/double x\[\]/const double x\[\]/, and normalizing // => X inline comments is adaptive rewriting outside that shape.

Other

Validation

• Search scope: each source pattern was searched within the source commit's namespace and the immediate sibling namespaces (stats/base/dists/*/{logcdf,logpdf,logpmf,logsf} for the description fix; number/*/base/*/examples/c/example.c and the mirrored README.md snippets for the const-qualifier fix). Header files under include/ were checked for the description pattern; only src/main.c in gumbel/logcdf carried the pre-fix wording. math/strided/special/* example.c files were checked for the const pattern; the arrays are already const there.
• Two independent Opus validation agents confirmed the defect at each candidate site by reading the file in full and cross-checking sibling files (for the description pattern: verifying lib/main.js and the header already use the corrected phrasing; for the const pattern: verifying x is never written and the C-snippet in README.md matches the example.c code).
• Style-consistency: the description fix reproduces the exact sentence used by the pareto-type1 sibling; the const-qualifier addition is a one-token prefix with no impact on surrounding style.

Deliberately excluded:

• Two of the three README C snippets covered by the const-qualifier pattern — float32/base/to-word/README.md and float64/base/exponent/README.md. Lint Changed Files flags // => doctest markers on adjacent JS example lines the moment either README enters the changed-files set (stdlib/doctest-marker: Use // returns after variable declarations or assignment expressions instead of =>). The lint is pre-existing debt; normalizing it is adaptive rewriting outside the source commit's mechanical shape. Follow-up commit 1f85abc reverts the two README lines while keeping the sibling .c edits. See the note in "Questions" for how this interacts with the Run changed examples push-event trigger.
• The refactor: add isnan guards sweep from b5b7b4c (stats/base/dists/{beta,betaprime,f,gamma,invgamma}): sibling PR chore: follow-up fixes for recent develop commits #13373 already flagged the isnan-guard ordering as a follow-up, and other candidate dists (uniform, arcsine) return NaN correctly via NaN-arithmetic propagation without an explicit guard — adding one is an adaptive, defense-in-depth call, not a mechanical propagation, and better handled as a deliberate normalization pass.
• The logorithm → logarithm typo on line 29 of gumbel/logcdf/src/main.c and the GUMBEL_CDF_H → GUMBEL_LOGCDF_H include-guard-comment typo: unrelated to the description pattern the source commit fixed. Log-and-skip for a future maintenance pass.
• chi/logpdf and t/logpdf files ("log probability density function (logPDF)"): technically consistent phrasing, not the same defect a3c9b30 fixed.
• Other stats/base/dists/*/log{cdf,pdf,pmf,sf} files scanned; none carried the exact pre-fix wording.
• The 37 blas/*/examples/c/example.c files declaring double x[]: all wrap in-place BLAS routines (dscal, dsort, dfill, dswap, …) that mutate the input array; const would emit a discarded-qualifier warning.

Checklist

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

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

This PR was authored by Claude Code on behalf of @Planeshifter as an automated propagation of fixes merged to develop over the prior 24 hours. Candidate source commits were filtered for generalizable patterns, sibling sites located via grep-able pattern signatures, and each proposed patch independently validated by parallel reviewer agents (two Opus validation passes) before commits were applied in the primary worktree. A maintainer should audit and promote out of draft.