[expr.static.cast], [basic.type.qualifier] "More cv-qualified" vs "greater cv-qualification"

[Eisenwave]

There is a partial ordering of cv-qualifiers, and the defined term we have is more cv-qualified.

However, a number of places use a different term in reference; namely "greater cv-qualification" (e.g. https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.static.cast#14). We should be consistent about how we talk about the ordering of cv-qualifiers.

Some numbers:

• There are 6 occurrences of "more cv-qualified".
• There are 5 occurrences of "greater cv-qualification".

We could also primarily define everything in terms of cv-qualifier ordering, and say that:

A type cv1 T1 is more cv-qualified than type cv2 T2 if cv1 is greater than cv2.

[jensmaurer]

We should gravitate towards "more cv-qualified". It's better English phrasing, it's shorter, and it's using a defined term.

Feel free to post a pull request that adjusts the offenders.