Clarify package workflows (e.g. in examples) before release

[nikosbosse]

In #511 @seabbs commented on the fact that workflows in the package are a bit confusing and it often isn't really clear what the preferred route through the package is.

One specific thing we could do is update examples and make them more consistent, e.g. by adding

data |>
  as_forecast() |>
  set_forecast_unit() |>
  function()

Another proposal is mentioned in #507, and currently planned is #400. Updating the documentation to clarify workflows would help as well.
@seabbs did you have more thoughts?

[seabbs]

As with #532 maybe this is a do just before release issue once all decisions and updates have been made?

[nikosbosse]

Should we stick to the pipe syntax for consistency, and make it clearer to users?

Originally posted by @Bisaloo in #791 (comment)