Fix issue #103

[DanielVandH]

The on 0..1 was added to make it consistent with printing in ClassicalOrthogonalPolynomials

[TSGut]

Don't forget to update the example in the readme. 😇 (tbf that readme is incredibly stale and needs a lot of fixing)

EDIT Actually in light of https://github.com/JuliaApproximation/SemiclassicalOrthogonalPolynomials.jl/issues/106 maybe a readme cleanup should be an entirely separate matter. It would be nice to have some consistency and cross referencing between the ContinuumArrays polynomial packages, sort of like what is done in ClassicalOPs. I will open an issue elsewhere

[DanielVandH]

I think there's nothing to update in the README anyway since I didn't add 0..1 into the printing of SemiclassicalJacobi (if we want consistency with ClassicalOrthogonalPolynomials, I think it would instead be SemiclassicalJacobi(t, a, b, c) instead of SemiclassicalJacobi with weight... anyway).

[TSGut]

I think we do want consistency wherever it isn't artificial. I think it makes sense to keep the weight explicitly mentioned however because semiclassicaljacobi isn't as much of a conventional term and there are other definitions floating around.

[DanielVandH]

That makes sense. I've added the interval into the printing now

[TSGut]

Happy for me to merge this? Maybe up the version number as well

[DanielVandH]

Good to go now, I've bumped the version