Extra invalid syntax detection

[cverbiest]

I've come across following in our code.
This is wrong because of the double && on &not_avail_string

{ cceinc/trigdsp.i &ident      = BOEKJAAR-MISC
            &rec_field  = BJ-EINDE
            &dsp_frame  = {&misc_frame}
            &dsp_field  = WZ-TOT-DAT
            &&not_avail_string=ltodaystring }

This is easily overlooked and goes undetected because in this case it is an optional parameter.

Is the double & something that could be detected by a rule ?

I cannot imagine a situation where this would be valid, but maybe my imagination is limited.

[gquerret]

It can be detected, but that will trigger false positives on some codebase (I'm sure there is at least one app on Earth that considers that having named parameters starting with & is a good idea). Could be part of a new optional rule.

[gquerret]

Is the double & something that could be detected by a rule ?

The InvalidNamedParameter rule does this kind of check on named include parameters.