Write accesses in assignments, such as the access to `x` in `x = 0` are not
evaluated, so they should not have entries in the control flow graph. However,
qualifiers (and indexer arguments) should still be evaluated, for example in
```
x.Foo.Bar = 0;
```
the CFG should be `x --> x.Foo --> 0 --> x.Foo.Bar = 0` (as opposed to
`x --> x.Foo --> x.Foo.Bar --> 0 --> x.Foo.Bar = 0`, prior to this change).
A special case is assignments via acessors (properties, indexers, and event
adders), where we do want to include the access in the control flow graph,
as it represents the accessor call:
```
x.Prop = 0;
```
But instead of `x --> x.set_Prop --> 0 --> x.Prop = 0` the CFG should be
`x --> 0 --> x.set_Prop --> x.Prop = 0`, as the setter is called *after* the
assigned value has been evaluated.
An even more special case is tuple assignments via accessors:
```
(x.Prop1, y.Prop2) = (0, 1);
```
Here the CFG should be
`x --> y --> 0 --> 1 --> x.set_Prop1 --> y.set_Prop2 --> (x.Prop1, y.Prop2) = (0, 1)`.
The internal pre-SSA library was extended on 3e78c2671f
to include fields/properties that are local-scope-like. The CFG splitting logic
uses ranking of SSA definitions to define an (arbitrary) order of splits, but for
fields/properties the implicit entry definition all have the same line and column.
In effect, such SSA definitions incorrectly get the same rank. Adding the name
of the field/property to the lexicographic ordering resolves the issue.
This test exhibits two issues with Boolean CFG splitting: incorrect handling of
negated variables and incorrect splitting for variables defined inside a loop.
