[basic.types.general] Simplify phrasing of 'complete object'

[lprv]

A complete object can't be a bit-field, so saying 'non-bit-field complete object' is unnecessary.

[tkoeppe]

This was changed to the current wording by 3d711d3, https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2519.html, which explicitly added that wording. Please file a core issue if you think it is unnecessary.

[tkoeppe]

(@jensmaurer ^^^ for your information.)

[jensmaurer]

Ack, and agreed with @tkoeppe .

[frederick-vs-ja]

As the original submitter of CWG2519, I guess we should drop some occurrences of "complete" - as subobjects should also have object and value representations, and the representations should be consistent with complete objects as long as the subobject is not a bit-field. A follow-up CWG issue is possibly needed.

[lprv]

The linked issue changed "object" to "non-bit-field complete object". This PR removes (just) the "non-bit-field" part, as it is entirely redundant with "complete". This does not undo the resolution of the issue, or have any normative effect at all, hence I believe it is editorial.

I agree the object/value representation of non-bit-field subobjects is left unspecified by the new wording, but that gap is orthogonal to this PR.