👋 Hi there! 👋

And thank you for opening your first pull request! We will review it shortly. 🏃 💨

Getting Started

• Please read our contributing guidelines if you haven't already.
• For development guidance, refer to the development guide.

Next Steps

1. A project maintainer will approve GitHub Actions workflows for your PR.
2. All CI checks must pass before your submission can be fully reviewed.
3. You'll need to address any failures in linting or unit tests.

Running Tests Locally

You can use make to run any of the CI commands locally from the root directory of the stdlib repository:

# Run tests for all packages in the math namespace:
make test TESTS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/.*"
# Run benchmarks for a specific package:
make benchmark BENCHMARKS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/base/special/sin/.*"

If you haven't heard back from us within two weeks, please ping us by tagging the "reviewers" team in a comment on this PR.

If you have any further questions while waiting for a response, please join our Gitter channel to chat with project maintainers and other community members.

We appreciate your contribution!

Documentation Links

• Contributing Guidelines
• Development Guide
• Gitter channel
• make rules for running examples
• make rules for running unit tests
• make rules for running benchmarks

Hello! Thank you for your contribution to stdlib.

We noticed that the contributing guidelines acknowledgment is missing from your pull request. Here's what you need to do:

1. Please read our contributing guidelines.

2. Update your pull request description to include this checked box:

   - [x] Read, understood, and followed the [contributing guidelines](https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md)

This acknowledgment confirms that you've read the guidelines, which include:

• The developer's certificate of origin
• Your agreement to license your contributions under the project's terms

We can't review or accept contributions without this acknowledgment.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. We look forward to reviewing your contribution!

@Payal-Goswami Thank you for your interest in stdlib. The proposed changes are not quite what we are looking for. We are not interested in simply removing TODO; that was included in the comment for a reason. Instead, we'd prefer to actually resolve the comment. See #8009 for an example of what we are looking for.

Given #8009, I'll go ahead and close this PR. Thank you again for your interest, and we look forward to your future contributions! Cheers!

Thank you for the feedback and for pointing me to #8009 as a reference. That helps me understand the expectations much better.
I now see that instead of removing the // TODO: consider adding toLocaleString() comment, the right approach would be to actually implement the toLocaleString() method similar to how toString() is handled.
I’ll study #8009 carefully and work on a proper fix. Appreciate your guidance, and I look forward to contributing again!