* with {@link Collection} itself). Prefer subtypes such as {@link ImmutableSet} or {@link
 * ImmutableList}, which have well-defined {@link #equals} semantics, thus avoiding a common source
 * of bugs and confusion.
 *
 * <h3>About <i>all</i> {@code Immutable-} collections</h3>
 *
 * <p>The remainder of this documentation applies to every public {@code Immutable-} type in this

 * {@link Multimap} itself). Prefer subtypes such as {@link ImmutableSetMultimap} or {@link
 * ImmutableListMultimap}, which have well-defined {@link #equals} semantics, thus avoiding a common
 * source of bugs and confusion.
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> every {@link ImmutableMultimap} offers an {@link #inverse} view, so there is no
 * need for a distinct {@code ImmutableBiMultimap} type.
 *
 * <p><a id="iteration"></a>
 *

        // If the implementation uses identityHashCode(), referential equality is
        // probably intended. So no point in using an equal-but-different factory argument.
        // We check twice to avoid confusion caused by accidental hash collision.
        equalArgs.set(i, shouldBeEqualArg);
      }
    }
    return equalArgs;
  }

  private static boolean hashCodeInsensitiveToArgReference(

	if w.last != nil && !w.last.closed {
		if err := w.last.close(); err != nil {
			return err
		}
	}
	if len(w.dir) > 0 && w.dir[len(w.dir)-1].FileHeader == fh {
		// See https://golang.org/issue/11144 confusion.
		return errors.New("archive/zip: invalid duplicate FileHeader")
	}
	return nil
}

// CreateHeader adds a file to the zip archive using the provided [FileHeader]

 * {@link Multimap} itself). Prefer subtypes such as {@link ImmutableSetMultimap} or {@link
 * ImmutableListMultimap}, which have well-defined {@link #equals} semantics, thus avoiding a common
 * source of bugs and confusion.
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> every {@link ImmutableMultimap} offers an {@link #inverse} view, so there is no
 * need for a distinct {@code ImmutableBiMultimap} type.
 *
 * <p><a id="iteration"></a>
 *

And you have to wait 🕙 in the line for a long time or you lose your turn.

You probably wouldn't want to take your crush 😍 with you to run errands at the bank 🏦.

### Burger Conclusion { #burger-conclusion }

In this scenario of "fast food burgers with your crush", as there is a lot of waiting 🕙, it makes a lot more sense to have a concurrent system ⏸🔀⏯.

This is the case for most of the web applications.

 *   <li>Convert between specific preset values using {@link
 *       com.google.common.collect.Maps#asConverter Maps.asConverter}. For example, use this to
 *       create a "fake" converter for a unit test. It is unnecessary (and confusing) to <i>mock</i>
 *       the {@code Converter} type using a mocking framework.
 *   <li>Pass two lambda expressions or method references to the {@link #from from} factory method.

      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override
  public final void awaitTerminated() {

Y tienes que esperar 🕙 en la fila por mucho tiempo o pierdes tu turno.

Probablemente no querrías llevar a tu crush 😍 contigo a hacer trámites en el banco 🏦.

### Conclusión de las Hamburguesas { #burger-conclusion }

En este escenario de "hamburguesas de comida rápida con tu crush", como hay mucha espera 🕙, tiene mucho más sentido tener un sistema concurrente ⏸🔀⏯.

      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override
  public final void awaitTerminated() {