remove BOOST_ASSERT from two-graph-common-spanning-trees

[andreacassioli]

Before submitting

• This PR targets the develop branch.
• I searched for an existing PR or issue covering the same change.
• My contribution is licensed under the Boost Software License 1.0.

Type of change

• Bug fix
• New feature or API addition
• Refactor (no behavior change)
• Documentation
• Build, CI, or tooling
• Other (specify below)

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes (describe migration impact below)
• No

What this PR does

Drop the use of BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT, use static_assert
Drop the use of boost::is_same, use std::is_same

Motivation
Part of #593, tier 2 section 2.1

Testing

Manual testing

Checklist

• Existing tests pass (b2 in the test/ directory).
• New behavior is covered by a test, or this is a docs / build / refactor change.
• Documentation was updated if user-facing behavior changed.
• No new compiler warnings on the platforms I built against.

[github-actions]

Boost dependency footprint vs develop (auto-generated).
PR run 36444399762 vs develop run 36395676983 (79b93a5444).

Header-inclusion weights (graph files pulling each direct dependency in):

No header-inclusion-weight changes.

Transitive Boost modules: 47 → 47 (0)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

Compiler-warning counts vs develop (auto-generated).
PR run 36444399797 vs develop run 36395677010 (79b93a5444).

Job	Baseline	After	Delta
macos (clang, 14)	392	392	0
macos (clang, 17)	391	391	0
macos (clang, 20)	391	391	0
ubuntu (clang-19, 14)	392	392	0
ubuntu (clang-19, 17)	391	391	0
ubuntu (clang-19, 20)	391	391	0
ubuntu (clang-19, 23)	391	391	0
ubuntu (gcc-14, 14)	345	345	0
ubuntu (gcc-14, 17)	341	341	0
ubuntu (gcc-14, 20)	341	341	0
ubuntu (gcc-14, 23)	341	341	0
windows_msvc_14_3 (msvc-14.3)	931	931	0

[reach2sayan]

@andreacassioli I think the fix in #609 would clear the failure here.

[Becheler]

Yes, if @andreacassioli could give it a try by rebasing on develop that would be awesome !
thanks to you both <3

[Becheler]

thank you @andreacassioli for the changes !