== Why is this an issue?

The transitive property says that if ``++a == b++`` and ``++b == c++``, then ``++a == c++``. In such cases, there's no point in assigning ``++a++`` to ``++c++`` or vice versa because they're already equivalent. 


This rule raises an issue when an assignment is useless because the assigned-to variable already holds the value on all execution paths.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,text]
----
a = b;
c = a;
b = c; // Noncompliant: c and b are already the same
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,text]
----
a = b;
c = a;
----