[clang] Docs: ambiguous use of "explicitly" in [[clang::no_specializaiton]] (PR #143839)

[Nikolas Klauser via cfe-commits]

philnik777 wrote:

> This looks fine. The meaning is clear. (If anything, the C++ standard should have a better way to talk about "partial or explicit specializations")

Given that the whole argument to change this is that it's closer to the standard wording I don't see how the current change makes sense. It's just as technically incorrect as the old wording.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143839