}

          @Override
          public Map<Object, Object> loadAll(Iterable<?> keys) throws Exception {
            Map<Object, Object> result = Maps.newHashMap();
            // ignore request keys
            result.put(extraKey, extraValue);
            return result;
          }
        };
    LoadingCache<Object, Object> cache = CacheBuilder.newBuilder().build(loader);

      comparator = (Comparator<? super K>) NATURAL_ORDER;
    }
    if (map instanceof ImmutableSortedMap) {
      // TODO(kevinb): Prove that this cast is safe, even though
      // Collections.unmodifiableSortedMap requires the same key type.
      @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
      ImmutableSortedMap<K, V> kvMap = (ImmutableSortedMap<K, V>) map;
      if (!kvMap.isPartialView()) {
        return kvMap;
      }
    }

   * nullness checker can already "prove" are non-null. That means that the first parameter to
   * checkNotNull *should* be annotated to require it to be non-null.
   *
   * However, for a variety of reasons, Google developers have written a ton of code over the past
   * decade that assumes that they can use checkNotNull for non-precondition checks. I had hoped to

          }

          @Override
          public Map<Object, Object> loadAll(Iterable<?> keys) throws Exception {
            Map<Object, Object> result = Maps.newHashMap();
            // ignore request keys
            result.put(extraKey, extraValue);
            return result;
          }
        };
    LoadingCache<Object, Object> cache = CacheBuilder.newBuilder().build(loader);

      comparator = (Comparator<? super K>) NATURAL_ORDER;
    }
    if (map instanceof ImmutableSortedMap) {
      // TODO(kevinb): Prove that this cast is safe, even though
      // Collections.unmodifiableSortedMap requires the same key type.
      @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
      ImmutableSortedMap<K, V> kvMap = (ImmutableSortedMap<K, V>) map;
      if (!kvMap.isPartialView()) {
        return kvMap;
      }
    }

          }
        }

        return false;
      } finally {
        unlock();
      }
    }

    /** Clears a value that has not yet been set, and thus does not require count to be modified. */
    @CanIgnoreReturnValue
    boolean clearValueForTesting(
        K key,
        int hash,
        WeakValueReference<K, V, ? extends InternalEntry<K, V, ?>> valueReference) {

    checkState(refreshNanos == UNSET_INT, "refreshAfterWrite requires a LoadingCache");
  }

  private void checkWeightWithWeigher() {
    if (weigher == null) {
      checkState(maximumWeight == UNSET_INT, "maximumWeight requires weigher");
    } else {
      if (strictParsing) {
        checkState(maximumWeight != UNSET_INT, "weigher requires maximumWeight");
      } else {

  // For a (long) discussion about this specific issue and the general futility of life.
  //
  // For the time being we are OK with the problem discussed above since it requires a caller to
  // introduce a very specific kind of data-race. And given the other operations performed by these
  // methods that involve volatile read/write operations, in practice there is no issue. Also, the

   * nullness checker can already "prove" are non-null. That means that the first parameter to
   * checkNotNull *should* be annotated to require it to be non-null.
   *
   * However, for a variety of reasons, Google developers have written a ton of code over the past
   * decade that assumes that they can use checkNotNull for non-precondition checks. I had hoped to

  }

  /**
   * An iterator that performs a lazy N-way merge, calculating the next value each time the iterator
   * is polled. This amortizes the sorting cost over the iteration and requires less memory than
   * sorting all elements at once.
   *
   * <p>Retrieving a single element takes approximately O(log(M)) time, where M is the number of