more binary operators

[adl]

(suggested by Joachim)

Supporting more binary operators (like → or  ↔) could make some labels or acceptance conditions easier to write. If labels are expressed as BDDs, it might also make sense to have some kind of ITE operator.

[JanKretinsky]

As to the more advanced operators, I can only see the use of implication for Streett. However, this one is so simple to write with only the basic operators that I wouldn't consider it, in particular, not for v1 where we do not even plan to use things like generalized Streett. If the need arises, e.g. gen.Streett proves to be more convenient than gen.Rabin for probabilistic model checking, we might reconsider for v2