docs: use relative require path in evalpoly-compile example

[Planeshifter]

Resolves #12359.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Replaces the unnecessary tryRequire-based package loading in
  @stdlib/math/base/tools/evalpoly-compile/examples/index.js with
  a direct require( './../lib' ) call, fixing the
  stdlib/require-last-path-relative lint violation that caused the
  automated JavaScript lint workflow to fail on develop.

Failing run: https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/actions/runs/26668990373
(2026-05-30 00:34:49 UTC)

Symptom: stdlib/require-last-path-relative error at line 23 of
evalpoly-compile/examples/index.js — the last require() call was
require('@stdlib/utils/try-require'), a non-relative path.

Root cause: The example used the tryRequire pattern (intended for
packages with optional native addons that may fail to compile). The
evalpoly-compile package is pure JavaScript: its lib/ directory
contains only index.js, main.js, and templates/; it has no
native source, no native dependencies, and no build artifacts. The
tryRequire guard was therefore both unnecessary and counter-productive
— it made the last visible require() a non-relative path, triggering
the lint rule. The tryRequire( resolve( __dirname, '..', 'lib' ) )
call is not a require() call per the rule's AST check, so it does not
reset the "last require" pointer.

Fix: Remove path, @stdlib/utils/try-require, the error guard,
and the main() wrapper. Load the package directly with
require( './../lib' ), which is both the correct relative-path form
and the uniform convention used by sibling packages such as
@stdlib/math/base/tools/evalpoly.

This matches example in README.md.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• resolves Fix JavaScript lint errors #12359

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.

Validation: The fix was reviewed by three independent agents prior to
commit. Reviewer C (style/conventions) caught that the initial draft used
require( '..' ), which does not satisfy isRelativePath (the rule
checks for './' or '../' prefix). The fix was corrected to
require( './../lib' ) — consistent with sibling packages and
unambiguously a relative path — before the commit was staged.

The evalrational-compile package has an identical tryRequire pattern
in its example file and will trigger the same lint rule in a future
automated run. That file is out of scope for this PR (separate failure
event) but warrants a follow-up.

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.".

This PR was authored by Claude Code as part of an automated CI-failure
triage routine. The root-cause analysis, fix, and commit were produced
by the agent; the diff was reviewed against the ESLint rule
implementation and sibling package examples before being committed.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
math/base/tools/evalpoly-compile	$\color{green}210/210$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{red}41/42$ $\color{green}+97.62\%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}210/210$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$

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