Improve wording of the `drop_bounds` lint
This PR addresses #86653. The issue is sort of a false positive of the `drop_bounds` lint, but I would argue that the best solution for #86653 is simply a rewording of the warning message and lint description, because even if the lint is _technically_ wrong, it still forces the programmer to think about what they are doing, and they can always use `#[allow(drop_bounds)]` if they think that they really need the `Drop` bound.
There are two issues with the current warning message and lint description:
- First, it says that `Drop` bounds are "useless", which is technically incorrect because they actually do have the effect of allowing you e.g. to call methods that also have a `Drop` bound on their generic arguments for some reason. I have changed the wording to emphasize not that the bound is "useless", but that it is most likely not what was intended.
- Second, it claims that `std::mem::needs_drop` detects whether a type has a destructor. But I think this is also technically wrong: The `Drop` bound says whether the type has a destructor or not, whereas `std::mem::needs_drop` also takes nested types with destructors into account, even if the top-level type does not itself have one (although I'm not 100% sure about the exact terminology here, i.e. whether the "drop glue" of the top-level type counts as a destructor or not).
cc `@jonhoo,` does this solve the issue for you?
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
2627db6a3c