Ch. 05: further tweak to wording about user1 availability

This is a tricky thing to get “just right”, and I am not *totally* happy
with this solution, but I think it’s actually better without the “as a
whole” given the addition of the sentence at the end indicating that its
fields can still be accessed.

Author: chriskrycho

src/ch05-01-defining-structs.md

@@ -141,14 +141,14 @@ the struct’s definition.
 Note that the struct update syntax uses `=` like an assignment; this is because
 it moves the data, just as we saw in the [“Variables and Data Interacting with
 Move”][move]<!-- ignore --> section. In this example, we can no longer use
-`user1` as a whole after creating `user2` because the `String` in the
-`username` field of `user1` was moved into `user2`. If we had given `user2` new
-`String` values for both `email` and `username`, and thus only used the
-`active` and `sign_in_count` values from `user1`, then `user1` would still be
-valid after creating `user2`. Both `active` and `sign_in_count` are types that
-implement the `Copy` trait, so the behavior we discussed in the [“Stack-Only
-Data: Copy”][copy]<!-- ignore --> section would apply. We can still use
-`user1.email` in this example, since its value was _not_ moved out.
+`user1` after creating `user2` because the `String` in the `username` field of
+`user1` was moved into `user2`. If we had given `user2` new `String` values for
+both `email` and `username`, and thus only used the `active` and `sign_in_count`
+values from `user1`, then `user1` would still be valid after creating `user2`.
+Both `active` and `sign_in_count` are types that implement the `Copy` trait, so
+the behavior we discussed in the [“Stack-Only Data: Copy”][copy]<!-- ignore -->
+section would apply. We can still use `user1.email` in this example, because its
+value was _not_ moved out.
 
 ### Using Tuple Structs Without Named Fields to Create Different Types