Improve doc for bool operators

[EdwardChanCH]

Related PR:

• Expose bool <= and >= operators #117280

Changes:

• Makes bool class operator descriptions for == and != more consistent in style with <, and >.

[EdwardChanCH]

I'd keep the same order in both

Updated.

Resolved

[AThousandShips]

LGTM

[Repiteo]

Thanks!

[Mickeon]

more consistent in style.

In relation to what? I assume prior the PRs, but there's somewhat arbitrary arbitrary [b] tags encompassing XOR and EQ, for some reason.

The new descriptions are notably more technical, but they do not need to be. Let's keep in mind who is going to read the class reference, especially for the atomic Variant types. Users with all sorts of backgrounds in both English and programming languages alike.

"The two booleans are not equal" and "one operand is false and the other operand is true". Both are correct, but the former is way more succinct and snappy. It also rightfully assumes most users have a general grasp on what "equal" means.

Not too fond of this PR, I don't feel like this was necessary.