cut: rename const NOTHING to NO_PARTIAL

[cakebaker]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/rm/isatty (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/tail-n0f (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will regress 5 benchmarks

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 5 improved benchmarks
❌ 5 regressed benchmarks
✅ 347 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 50 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	split_lines	9.3 ms	11 ms	-15.65%
❌	Simulation	split_numeric_suffix	9.8 ms	11.6 ms	-14.92%
❌	Simulation	mv_directory	7.4 ms	8.3 ms	-11.01%
❌	Simulation	split_bytes	680.2 µs	712.3 µs	-4.51%
❌	Simulation	ls_recursive_deep_tree[(200, 2)]	3.6 ms	3.7 ms	-3.51%
⚡	Simulation	shuf_lines[100000]	72.1 ms	54.7 ms	+31.81%
⚡	Simulation	shuf_repeat_sampling[50000]	14 ms	12.3 ms	+14.2%
⚡	Simulation	numfmt_stream_to_si_precision	374 ms	347.7 ms	+7.57%
⚡	Simulation	du_summarize_balanced_tree[(5, 4, 10)]	16.9 ms	16 ms	+5.55%
⚡	Simulation	cksum_crc32b	40.8 ms	39.2 ms	+4.08%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing cakebaker:cut_rename_const (2769ef5) with main (9abce1f)²}

Footnotes

1. 50 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (c104a35) during the generation of this report, so 9abce1f was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩