Add `field@` and `variant@` doc-link disambiguators
I'm not sure if this is big enough to need an fcp or not, but this is something I found missing when trying to refer to a field in macro-generated docs, not knowing if a method might be defined as well. Obviously, there are definitely other uses.
In the case where it's not disambiguated, methods (and I suppose other associated items in the value namespace) still take priority, which `@jyn514` said was an oversight but I think is probably the desired behavior 99% of the time anyway - shadowing a field with an accessor method is a very common pattern. If fields and methods with the same name started conflicting, it would be a breaking change. Though, to quote them:
> jyn: maybe you can break this only if both [the method and the field] are public
> jyn: rustc has some future-incompat warning level
> jyn: that gets through -A warnings and --cap-lints from cargo
That'd be out of scope of this PR, though.
Fixes#80283
f79ef02e4b