Fix #9811 Remove const from Tuple.toString

[Inkrementator]

Now, member structs won't become const due to transitiveness and the code in std.format can choose (erroneously) non-cost toString() functions of member structs.

An expert has to decide whether this is worth the breaking change. Now, code that uses const tuples and calls toString directly on them will break. Alternatively, we could use
Template this parameters.

That way, we get a template parameter with the real type of this. Then we can cast away constness of this when we now for certain that it isn't, since is(T != typeof(this)) (where T is the template this parameter). Of course, this implies making toString @trusted too.

This might also lead to unforeseen bugs when const is cast away but the member objects are actually const. I'm not sure how this works.

Fwiw, currently std.format and std.conv: to already intercepts const tuples, thus it at least won't call toString directly. The breaking change will only effect code that calls toString on const tuples directly.

That's why I have added non-prescritive tests. If something in std.format changes, they'll be alerted and can then decide whether to change the tests or whether this module also needs work, in case this would lead a bigger breaking change.

Followup to #10645.

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @Inkrementator! 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

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

⚠️⚠️⚠️ Warnings ⚠️⚠️⚠️

• In preparation for migrating from Bugzilla to GitHub Issues, the issue reference syntax has changed. Please add the word "Bugzilla" to issue references. For example, Fix Bugzilla Issue 12345 or Fix Bugzilla 12345.(Reminder: the edit needs to be done in the Git commit message, not the GitHub pull request.)

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#10646"