docs: improve doctests for complex number instances in array/base/resolve-getter

[aryan7071]

Resolves a part of #8641

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Updates REPL and documentation examples in the array/base/resolve-getter package to use the compact complex instance doctest notation.
• Replaces example decomposition using realf/imagf with concise doctest annotations such as <Complex64>[ 3.0, 4.0 ] etc.
• Removes example-only imports (realf, imagf) where they were only used to show decomposed values.
• Keeps all edits documentation-only (no runtime behavior or type changes).

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• [RFC]: Improve doctests for complex number instances in documentation examples (tracking issue) #8641

(Replace the placeholder above with the relevant issue number if applicable.)

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

I made some changes to this code as well, but in the example code, the variables are still named real and imag. I want to confirm whether I should update these code to follow the new complex instance notation. Please advise.

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.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of 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

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution.

N/A

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
array/base/resolve-getter	$\color{green}98/98$ $color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}5/5$ $color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}98/98$ $color{green}+100.00%$

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!

[kgryte]

/stdlib merge