Re: [boost] Adding logical implication to boost

On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 2:07 AM Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

pon., 6 sty 2025 o 19:43 Ivan Matek via Boost napisał(a): If you are only interested in a convenience function (and not the short-circuiting properties), this reminds me of Peter Dimov's remark about operator =>: It already exists in C++ and is spelled operator <=.

It is interesting trick, but again I *personally* prefer the named function. Also all this discussions about asserts made me think that maybe it would be nice to have BOOST_STATIC_IMPLIES. This is just my intuition, I do not know how many people would actually use it, and how common are implications in static_assert.