doc: rewrite quick tour

[peter-jerry-ye]

For proof reading: https://moonbit-docs--413.org.readthedocs.build/en/413/

[peter-jerry-ye-code-review]

‼️ This code review is generated by a bot. Please verify the content before trusting it.

Here are three potential issues or suggestions based on the provided git diff output:

1. Inconsistent Formatting in Code Blocks:

   • In the section where code blocks are introduced, some code blocks use {code-block} moonbit while others use triple backticks (). This inconsistency can be confusing for readers. It would be better to standardize the format for code blocks throughout the document. For example, consistently using triple backticks with the language specified (e.g., moonbit) would improve readability and maintainability.

2. Ambiguity in Function Documentation:

   • The function is_qualified is described as taking a Student and a criteria of type Double, but the example provided in the test uses criteria as an integer (e.g., is_qualified(student, 10)). This could lead to confusion or runtime errors if the function expects a Double but receives an Int. The documentation should clarify the expected type or ensure that the examples match the function signature.

3. Visibility and Accessibility Issues:

   • The section on adjusting visibility mentions that functions and types need to be marked as pub or pub(all) to be accessible outside the current package. However, the example provided does not show the actual modification of the code to include these visibility modifiers. It would be helpful to include a concrete example of how to modify the Student struct and is_qualified function to make them public, ensuring that readers can follow along and apply the changes correctly.

These suggestions aim to improve the clarity, consistency, and usability of the documentation.

[bobzhang]

@peter-jerry-ye looks much better and coherent, thank you!