I noticed:
* there are a few actual errors.
I found only one error with ldivide. The documentation string calls
mldivide by accident (bug 1) and your test happens to reveal a problem
in mldivide (bug 2). Lucky strike!
* there are some cases of @example used as a LaTeX alternative
(is there an @verbatim instead?)
Yes, the @example blocks have been used for ASCII art and do not contain
actual examples. The @verbatim should be a valid replacement (without
indentation). I am going to change the documentation.
* there a few minor (cosmetic?) errors: [-1, 5] to [-1, +5]
I would consider these actual errors and am going to fix the
documentation. A very early version of the package had a different
format for the output of signs.
* there are a couple cases were my current splitting
input/output based on @result{} fails. (Personally I prefer
marking input with ">>" but the doctest code could instead be
refactored further.)
I found several problems with doctest:
intervaltotext: The @example block contains 3 consecutive inputs and
outputs. Without the missing “>>” for inputs there is a problem with
seperating them. Would it be sufficient to use three @group blocks in
the @example block?
eq, nextout: The output is boolean, but the documentation string shows
the console output as ans = 0 (or 1). I can change the documentation to
@result{} False (or True).
mulrev: The function returns two return values and the syntax used in
the @example is probably wrong for that purpose.