docs: improve doctests for ndarray instances in stats/range

[ujjwalv01]

Progresses #9329.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Improves doctests for ndarray instances in the @stdlib/stats/range package by removing the usage of ndarray2array and replacing explicit array decomposition with ndarray instance notation.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• [RFC]: Improve doctests for ndarray instances in documentation examples (tracking issue) #9329

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

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. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/range	$\\color{green}158/158$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}2/2$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}0/0$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}158/158$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$

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

[kgryte]

@ujjwalv01 Thanks for your pull request; however, we are not interested in updating this particular example. The example should be left as is because, for this code block, it should match the runnable code in examples/index.js and actually print output.