Request for new warning when implication-operators used in cover properties

[jcurtiss8086]

When a property uses an implication-operator, it is considered 'true' if the antecedent does not have a match, e.g. a |-> b

It is a common mistake in RTL that properties/sequences used for assertions are re-used for covers. The cover then trivially passes when a has no match which is almost never the actual intention for the cover.

i.e. instead of a |->b , the cover should generally be a && b
and instead of a |=> b, the cover should generally be a ##1 b

Would it be fairly straight forward to define a new warning that triggers when implication-operators are present in properties or sequences used by covers?

[MikePopoloski]

Yes, this seem doable.