Re: Adding logical implication to boost

From: Ivan Matek (libbooze_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-01-09 19:06:44

On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 2:07 AM Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>
>
> pon., 6 sty 2025 o 19:43 Ivan Matek via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> 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.