/*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (That would also have ensured that its cause was always an Error, rather than possibly another

  /*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (That would also have ensured that its cause was always an Error, rather than possibly another

  /*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (Perhaps it should also have required that its cause was a RuntimeException. However, that

  /*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (Perhaps it should also have required that its cause was a RuntimeException. However, that

   * even worse. For now, we just suppress and move on with our lives.
   *
   * - https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/65
   *
   * - https://github.com/jspecify/jdk/commit/71d826792b8c7ef95d492c50a274deab938f2552
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): Is the unchecked cast avoidable? Would System.arraycopy be similarly fast (if

   * even worse. For now, we just suppress and move on with our lives.
   *
   * - https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/65
   *
   * - https://github.com/jspecify/jdk/commit/71d826792b8c7ef95d492c50a274deab938f2552
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): Is the unchecked cast avoidable? Would System.arraycopy be similarly fast (if

          <item index="14" class="java.lang.String" itemvalue="org.jetbrains.annotations.Nullable" />
          <item index="15" class="java.lang.String" itemvalue="org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable" />
        </list>
      </value>
    </option>
    <option name="myNotNulls">
      <value>
        <list size="16">

 * It is possible for Try to hold null values.
 */
public abstract class Try<T> {
    // TODO(https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/24767): with JSpecify, the nullable nature of the type argument <T> should be expressed as <T extends @Nullable Object>.
    //  We cannot use this syntax until adopting JSpecify with e.g. Jetbrains Annotations, because IDEA wrongly treats all Try usages as having a nullable type, even when
    //  it is explicitly spelled, e.g.

 * <p>
 * This class can hold a null value.
 */
@ThreadSafe
public interface CalculatedValue<T> {
    // TODO(https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/24767): with JSpecify, the nullable nature of the type argument <T> should be expressed as <T extends @Nullable Object>.

    /**
     * Returns the value, failing if it has not been calculated.

    // TODO(https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/24767): with JSpecify, the nullable nature of the type argument <T> should be expressed as <T extends @Nullable Object>.
    //  We cannot use this syntax until adopting JSpecify with e.g. Jetbrains Annotations, because IDEA wrongly treats all usages as having a nullable type, even when
    //  it is explicitly spelled.