So that instead of

it would be possible to do something like

Tomasz, what do you think of it?

It could be possible to create the operators that would work in numeric expressions and compute logical operation with numeric (1 or 0) result, but I feel that it could be a bit confusing when we also have an additional class of operators that can be used to build actual logical expressions. fasm's language uses a design when these kinds of expressions are separate entities, and numeric expressions are themselves elements that a logical expression may be built from (like numbers are elements to built numeric expression). I feel that this approach plays well with my general view of fasm's syntax as "one statement per line"-like language. In fasmg I have kept the expression evaluation as close to fasm's as possible (in most places it is fully compatible).

Sometimes I think people want fasm(g) to be a C clone.

The terrible double/single equals and the amount of bugs it has caused in C code are innumerable.

It is worth to add that MASM's syntax, which is what fasm tried to distance itself from, was at least partially designed to resemble C. The MASM's semantics of square brackets were inherited from C and were so often hated that it led to the creation of TASM's "ideal mode" and NASM's syntax.

No, I don't want a C clone and I used == as the first that came to mind just to express the idea easy to follow -- being able to wrap 3 or more if-else statements into one-line expression

Yeah, this what I see as the C way of doing things. Make the logic as dense as possible to confuse the reader and hide more bugs. Along with the pattern of single character variable names that makes it even more obscure as to what is intended. Many C coders do this (either intentionally or not) and then end up confusing themselves later. I guess I just don't want to see assembly head down the same path.

It could lead to faster source processing and decreasing compilation time. Ain't it good?

I think that is totally the wrong metric to use, even if it were to be true. It only takes one bug, with all the effort to fix it, and you've lost all those speed gains many times over.

Could use 'isof'.
Want for speedy application compilation is the indication of bad design.