[string.cons] Editorial change for caption on table 56

[mclow]

LWG closed issue 3033 as "NAD editorial", with a suggestion that changing the caption on the table would be both editorial and sufficient.

The current caption is "basic_string(const basic_string&) effects"

My first suggestion is: "basic_string(const basic_string&) and basic_string(const basic_string&&) effects", but I'm not going to insist on that.

The discussion occurred on the -lib reflector in the thread titled "Issue 3033: basic_string move ctor is underspecified"

[tkoeppe]

Can I make a counter-proposal to just remove the tables outright and replace them with standard Postconditions elements? @zygoloid, would you support that?

[tkoeppe]

Proposal:

[jensmaurer]

Those constructor postcondition tables are odd, and telling the reader the state of three data members doesn't seem overly obtuse to warrant separate tables.

[tkoeppe]

I believe at some point in the past there was one table that was shared between two \itemdescs. However, I merged those two separate items into one a few months ago, and now we have literally one table per item. So I think the time has come for those tables to pass on to a better place.