Docs fixes

[nluetts]

Hi @kellino

another (and I think the last) one with respect to https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7334

These are my final suggestions for the docs. I thought a PR would not be much more work on my side (maybe even less), so here we go. I tried to make small commits to make the diffs/commit messages clearer.

There are a few places in the doc where the rendering fails because of

• not enough spaces in doc strings in front of code examples (only function definitions, I think; you need four spaces to make it parse as code)
• use of underscore _ in the docstrings without wrapping the word in backticks, e.g. if you write estimate_h without the backticks, the markdown parser will think the underscore should mean whatever comes next should be rendered in italics, and then it completely fails

What I did not touch but where you should have a look:

The Project.toml/Manifest.toml in docs does not include DiscreteEntropy.jl itself. So when I ran this environment to build the docs, I first had to do a

] dev ..

to dev the package in the parent directory. Then it works. Maybe this should be documented somehow. I did not want to commit my modified Manifest, because it also includes a different julia version (1.10.5) and I am not so sure about including the Manifest anyway.

[nluetts]

I checked off the remaining bullet point in the "Documentation" section of my review list.

[kellino]

I really wasn't expecting a pull request from an editor! That is above and beyond. I would add you as a co-author if it wasn't an obvious conflict of interest :)

[nluetts]

All fine, a PR from a reviewer is something that JOSS encourages, and it is nothing that makes me a legitimate co-author. For uncontroversial problems in the docs a PR is a good way to go, since listing out the findings is not much less work.