rustdoc: Some more lazy formatting

[yotamofek]

Mostly replaces format! calls with format_args!

[rustbot]

r? @GuillaumeGomez

rustbot has assigned @GuillaumeGomez.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: rustdoc
• rustdoc expanded to 9 candidates
• Random selection from GuillaumeGomez, camelid, notriddle

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[GuillaumeGomez]

Changes look good to me. Let's see what perf says.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 292a5f7 (292a5f7d9943858f6868c4b613c63856e24e9165, parent: 09a371361240e42b0d69438fd1179efcf212e576)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (292a5f7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 517.481s -> 517.65s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 401.31 MiB -> 400.81 MiB (-0.12%)