chore: clean-up

[Planeshifter]

Description

Two mechanical drift corrections in stats/base/dists/laplace, each normalizing a lib/factory.js private closure to the convention shared by its sibling function members. No behavior, signatures, or test expectations change.

stats/base/dists/laplace/mgf

The private mgf closure returned by factory omitted the leading isnan( t ) short-circuit that its own lib/main.js and 5 of 6 sibling function factories apply before any arithmetic (83% conformance). Added it as the first guard. Output is identical for every input — mgf( NaN ) already returned NaN through arithmetic propagation — so this is a consistency fix, not a behavior change.

stats/base/dists/laplace/pdf

The private pdf closure returned by factory carried an untagged usage snippet in its JSDoc; every other function member tags it with @example (5 of 6 siblings; 83% conformance). Added the missing tag. Documentation only.

Related Issues

No.

Questions

No.

Other

Both corrections were surfaced by a majority-vote drift sweep over the 15 members of stats/base/dists/laplace (75% threshold) and confirmed by independent source review; each is a single-package, behavior-preserving patch confined to lib/factory.js.

Deliberately excluded from this PR:

• ctor's absence of native-C scaffolding and of the location-scale/exponential family keywords — intentional, ctor is a pure-JS constructor class.
• stdev's python (rather than julia) test fixtures — a valid alternative that would cascade to expected test data.
• The ## C APIs "rate parameter" label for b in cdf/logcdf/logpdf/quantile/mode — a genuine documentation error, but with no ≥75% namespace majority (9 "scale" / 5 "rate") and a fix that requires the domain judgment that "scale" is correct. Left for a maintainer.

No overlap with open PR #13410 (touches only laplace READMEs) or merged PR #12449 (mgf @param JSDoc normalization — distinct items).

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 as part of an automated cross-package API drift-detection sweep. The routine extracted structural and semantic features from every member of stats/base/dists/laplace, computed a per-feature majority pattern at a 75% threshold, validated each candidate correction against the package source and its siblings, and applied only mechanical, behavior-preserving patches. A maintainer should audit and promote out of draft.

---

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/dists/laplace/mgf	$\\color{green}320/320$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}21/21$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}4/4$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}320/320$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$
stats/base/dists/laplace/pdf	$\\color{green}292/292$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}19/19$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}4/4$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}292/292$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$

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