[ 2024-08-03; Daniel provides improved wording ]

The current wording is inconsistent in regard to explicit conversion to bool and lack of them in cases of expressions whose value is required to satisfy the boolean-testable constraints. To realize consistent results for all subclause references touched by the changes required by this issue I decided that every E definition remains unconverted but and that every E evaluation is interpreted as if an implied bool conversion has been applied based on the reflector preference for that simplified approach.

Nonetheless, during the wording preparation I noticed that the wording in the Throws: element [list.ops] p17 is seriously missing the additional extra conversion to bool for both expressions, because the boolean-testable requirements do not impose a no-throw requirement for that conversion, and they must therefore be included here.

This problem will be handled by a separate issue (LWG 4132), because the rationale for this change is different from the actual target of this issue and not related to the other consistency adjustments done by the wording below.