They are interested in short-circuiting, so only &&, ||, and ? do that. They would want to avoid the evaluation of b() in a() => b() if a() is false. But !a()

They are interested in short-circuiting, so only &&, ||, and ? do that. They would want to avoid the evaluation of b() in a() => b() if a() is false. But !a() || b() does that. So it seems that the proposal isn't needed. a implies b should just be written !a || b.