Most checks against an ``++indexOf++`` value compare it with -1 because 0 is a valid index. Any checks which look for values >0 ignore the first element, which is likely a bug. If the intent is merely to check inclusion of a value in a ``++String++`` or a ``++List++``, consider using the ``++contains++`` method instead.


This rule raises an issue when an ``++indexOf++`` value retrieved either from a ``++String++`` or a ``++List++`` is tested against ``++>0++``.
