MAINT: Rephrase pejorative wording in test_lqnash comment

[jasperdingg]

Closes #901, rephrased comment in test_lqnash.py. Confirmed that term doesn't appear elsewhere.

[jasperdingg]

Hi @mmcky, quick follow up on #910!

[quantecon-services]

Hi @jasperdingg 👋 Thanks for picking this up, and apologies for the slow turnaround on a small PR.

This does exactly what #901 asked for. The rewording keeps the underlying TODO about hardcoded MATLAB reference values while stating it plainly, and I independently confirmed the grep: the line you changed is the only occurrence of that word anywhere in the tree. The branch also merges cleanly onto current main, so nothing else is needed on that front.

I've left one inline nit (a whitespace-only blank line) with a suggestion you can accept in one click. Once that's in, this is good to merge.

One friendly request. QuantEcon is currently drafting an AI disclosure policy for contributions (see QuantEcon/qeps#13). It isn't in force yet, but it would help us as we shape the policy if you could add a short note to the PR description saying whether AI tools were used in preparing this PR and, if so, which tools or models (e.g. "drafted with Claude Code / Copilot / ChatGPT, then reviewed and tested by hand"). "No AI tools used" is an equally welcome answer.

The goal is transparency rather than gatekeeping. AI-assisted contributions are fine, we'd just like the provenance recorded.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[coveralls]

coverage: 90.884%. remained the same — jasperdingg:maint/rephrase-test-comment into QuantEcon:main