Fix Issue 18036 - Documentation of moveFront()

[pbackus]

...fails to mention different behavior depending on
hasElaborateCopyConstructor

The new wording is based on the documentation for core.lifetime.move.

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @pbackus! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

---

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close	Bugzilla	Severity	Description
✓	18036	normal	Documentation of moveFront() fails to mention different behavior depending on hasElaborateCopyConstructor

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + phobos#8393"

[acehreli]

Thank you! Looks good to me but I don't think I can approve. (?)

[thewilsonator]

This is slightly confusing as is because it uses "it" for both r.front (as it lives in the range r) and the returned/moved value.

[RazvanN7]

I think that we should mention the copy constructor here instead of the postblit.

[radcapricorn]

I think that we should mention the copy constructor here instead of the postblit.

Yes, the documentation for core.lifetime.move is itself outdated too in that regard.

[pbackus]

Changed to "copy constructor" and tried to clarify the wording a bit.