[class.prop] standard-layout class type requirements are hard to read

I find that https://eel.is/c++draft/class.prop#2.7 is pretty hard to read in its current state: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/0ca05d2160509f832532469fe8d8b83ead0de922/source/classes.tex#L208-L230

For starters, we can replace the first and last bullet like:

-\item If \tcode{X} is a non-union class type with no non-static data members, 
-the set $M(\mathtt{X})$ is empty. 
 [...]
-\item If \tcode{X} is a non-class, non-array type, the set $M(\mathtt{X})$ is empty.
+Otherwise, the set $M(\mathtt{X})$ is empty.

I may draft up an actual PR for this soon, but I'm still pondering on how to fully simplify this.

Read source/classes.tex around lines 208–230 and the [class.prop] paragraph linked in the issue. Compare the proposed consolidation with the remaining bullet wording and determine a complete simplification that preserves the standard’s meaning. Done means the paragraph is easier to read and the source matches the intended wording.