@Override
          protected char[] escapeUnsafe(char c) {
            return ("{" + c + "}").toCharArray();
          }
        };
    EscaperAsserts.assertBasic(wrappingEscaper);
    // '[' and '@' lie either side of [A-Z].
    assertEquals("{[}FOO{@}BAR{]}", wrappingEscaper.escape("[FOO@BAR]"));
  }

  public void testSafeRange_maxLessThanMin() throws IOException {
    // Basic escaping of unsafe chars (wrap them in {,}'s)

   * class documentation above). This method is <i>generally expected</i>, but not absolutely
   * required, to have the following properties:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>Its execution does not cause any observable side effects.
   *   <li>The computation is <i>consistent with equals</i>; that is, {@link Objects#equal
   *       Objects.equal}{@code (a, b)} implies that {@code predicate.apply(a) ==
   *       predicate.apply(b))}.
   * </ul>

   * trouble than just using Object.class.)
   *
   * Then we declare the getters for these fields as @GwtIncompatible so that no one can try to use
   * them under J2CL—or, as an unfortunate side effect, under GWT. We do still give the fields
   * themselves their proper values under GWT, since GWT's EnumMap does need the Class instance.
   *

          @Override
          protected char[] escapeUnsafe(char c) {
            return ("{" + c + "}").toCharArray();
          }
        };
    EscaperAsserts.assertBasic(wrappingEscaper);
    // '[' and '@' lie either side of [A-Z].
    assertEquals("{[}FOO{@}BAR{]}", wrappingEscaper.escape("[FOO@BAR]"));
  }

  public void testSafeRange_maxLessThanMin() throws IOException {
    // Basic escaping of unsafe chars (wrap them in {,}'s)

   * class documentation above). This method is <i>generally expected</i>, but not absolutely
   * required, to have the following properties:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>Its execution does not cause any observable side effects.
   *   <li>The computation is <i>consistent with equals</i>; that is, {@link Objects#equal
   *       Objects.equal}{@code (a, b)} implies that {@code predicate.apply(a) ==
   *       predicate.apply(b))}.
   * </ul>

  private void readMoreChars() throws IOException {
    // Possibilities:
    // 1) array has space available on right-hand side (between limit and capacity)
    // 2) array has space available on left-hand side (before position)
    // 3) array has no space available
    //
    // In case 2 we shift the existing chars to the left, and in case 3 we create a bigger

          protected char[] escapeUnsafe(int c) {
            return ("{" + (char) c + "}").toCharArray();
          }
        };
    EscaperAsserts.assertBasic(wrappingEscaper);
    // '[' and '@' lie either side of [A-Z].
    assertEquals("{[}FOO{@}BAR{]}", wrappingEscaper.escape("[FOO@BAR]"));
  }

  public void testDeleteUnsafeChars() throws IOException {
    UnicodeEscaper deletingEscaper =

       * need to clear our reference to the TimeoutFuture is the reason we use a *static* nested
       * class with a manual reference back to the "containing" class.)
       *
       * This has the nice-ish side effect of limiting reentrancy: run() calls
       * timeoutFuture.setException() calls run(). That reentrancy would already be harmless, since
       * timeoutFuture can be set (and delegate cancelled) only once. (And "set only once" is

      label: 3. What would that same code look like if we added your feature?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: markdown
    attributes:
      value: >
        Comparing two approaches to a use case side by side can make it easier to examine the
        differences between them.


        Additionally, it's very useful to us if you can provide a "straw API" — what the

  }

  /**
   * Configures the given map maker to use weak keys, if possible; does nothing otherwise (i.e., in
   * GWT). This is sometimes acceptable, when only server-side code could generate enough volume
   * that reclamation becomes important.
   */
  @J2ktIncompatible
  static MapMaker tryWeakKeys(MapMaker mapMaker) {
    return mapMaker.weakKeys();
  }