The wording for && and || had a number of issues which this PR resolves.

1. The wording of && and || is oddly asymmetric in a number of places. Specific wording choices like using : in one paragraph, and ; morever, are asymmetric with no good reason.
2. There are notes regarding & left in normative wording. These are extracted into an actual note.
3. In both subclauses, the first and second paragraph contain a mixture of describing the result (type) and describing evaluation. This is fixed by clearly separating it so that:
   • the first paragraph talks about the result
   • the second paragraph talks about left-to-right evaluation and short-circuiting
4. The second paragraph needlessly says that the result is bool. The first paragraph already states that the result is true or false, so this information is redundant.
5. The wording contains the phrase "the expression is sequenced" which doesn't make any sense because an expression is a syntactical construct and cannot be sequenced. Only an evaluation can be sequenced.
6. The paragraphs contain a mixture of first/second terminology and left/right terminology. The PR uses left/right terminology in all places.
7. Other places in the standard contain notes about "the short-circuiting behavior" of the && operator. However, this is not noted in the description of the && and || operator. This information is added to a note.