Yet another slap on the hand by implicit bool to int conversions

[bearophile]

Steven Schveighoffer:

> In order to have a fix for something like this, you need the error to be  
> near 100% invalid.  Like nobody ever writes this as *valid* code:
> 
> if(cond);
> 
> no matter what cond is.

My enhancement request was about redundancies in the code, that sometimes hide implicit errors, they can't be 'near 100% invalid'. In this case I am not looking for explicit errors, some/many of the redundancies aren't bugs.

Bye,
bearophile