Backport PR #18849 on branch v7.2.x (BUG: fix forward compatibility for np.arange(<Quantity>, ...) against numpy 2.4 (dev)) - #18888

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

@neutrinoceros , did we forget to backport something else? I still see 1 failure here:

FAILED astropy/units/tests/test_quantity_non_ufuncs.py::TestFunctionHelpersSignatureCompatibility::test_all_arguments_reexposed[array-array] - AssertionError: argument 'ndmax' is not re-exposed as keyword

We just forgot to merge #18846
I'll do it now and restart this one (possibly with a rebase)

hum, the remaining failure is surprising, it should already have been fixed with #18886
I'll see if there's anything else we missed

Ah, I see what happened. #18885 (and its backport #18886) only fixed unit, not utils.masked, which is what we're seeing here. I'll handle it with a new PR.

update: for reference #18889

@neutrinoceros - just to make sure I understand, is this present backport good to go?

Yes.

for completeness, the complementary fix is now backported at #18892