Improve documentation for constructors of pinned `Box`es
Adds a cross-references between `Box::pin` and `Box::into_pin` (and other related methods, i.e. the equivalent `From` implementation, and the unstable `pin_in` method), in particular now that `into_pin` [was stabilized](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97397). The main goal is to further improve visibility of the fact that `Box<T> -> Pin<Box<T>>` conversion exits in the first place, and that `Box::pin(x)` is – essentially – just a convenience function for `Box::into_pin(Box::new(x))`
The motivating context why I think this is important is even experienced Rust users overlooking the existence this kind of conversion, [e.g. in this thread on IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-function-variants/16732/7?u=steffahn); and also the fact that that discussion brought up that there would be a bunch of Box-construction methods "missing" such as e.g. methods with fallible allocation a la "`Box::try_pin`", and similar; while those are in fact *not* necessary, because you can use `Box::into_pin(Box::try_new(x)?)` instead.
I have *not* included explicit mention of methods (e.g. `try_new`) in the docs of stable methods (e.g. `into_pin`). (Referring to unstable API in stable API docs would be bad style IMO.) Stable examples I have in mind with the statement "constructing a (pinned) Box in a different way than with `Box::new`" are things like cloning a `Box`, or `Box::from_raw`. If/when `try_new` would get stabilized, it would become a very good concrete example use-case of `Box::into_pin` IMO.
5b64aab2b6