this.wordBoundary = wordBoundary;
    this.wordSeparator = wordSeparator;
  }

  /**
   * Converts the specified {@code String str} from this format to the specified {@code format}. A
   * "best effort" approach is taken; if {@code str} does not conform to the assumed format, then
   * the behavior of this method is undefined but we make a reasonable effort at converting anyway.
   */

 * variety of sequences of the {@link Iterator#next}, {@link Iterator#hasNext} and {@link
 * Iterator#remove} operations. This utility takes the brute-force approach of trying <i>all</i>
 * possible sequences of these operations, up to a given number of steps. So, if the caller
 * specifies to use <i>n</i> steps, a total of <i>3^n</i> tests are actually performed.
 *

            // we called sizeIfKnown and when we started reading the file (or I guess if
            // maxCharsPerByte is wrong)
            // Fallback to an incremental approach
            StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder(bufIndex + 32);
            builder.append(buffer, 0, bufIndex);
            buffer = null; // release for gc
            CharStreams.copy(reader, builder);

    this.wordBoundary = wordBoundary;
    this.wordSeparator = wordSeparator;
  }

  /**
   * Converts the specified {@code String str} from this format to the specified {@code format}. A
   * "best effort" approach is taken; if {@code str} does not conform to the assumed format, then
   * the behavior of this method is undefined but we make a reasonable effort at converting anyway.
   */

    this.remainingField = remainingFutures;
  }

  final Set<Throwable> getOrInitSeenExceptions() {
    /*
     * The initialization of seenExceptionsField has to be more complicated than we'd like. The
     * simple approach would be for each caller CAS it from null to a Set populated with its
     * exception. But there's another race: If the first thread fails with an exception and a second
     * thread immediately fails with the same exception:

API changes
-----------

We make changes to Guava's public [APIs][], including adding new APIs, very
carefully. Because of this, if you're interested in seeing a new feature in
Guava, the best approach is to create an [issue][] (or comment on an existing
issue if there is one) requesting the feature and describing specific use cases
for it.

If we decide to pursue a feature request, it will go through a thorough process

 * variety of sequences of the {@link Iterator#next}, {@link Iterator#hasNext} and {@link
 * Iterator#remove} operations. This utility takes the brute-force approach of trying <i>all</i>
 * possible sequences of these operations, up to a given number of steps. So, if the caller
 * specifies to use <i>n</i> steps, a total of <i>3^n</i> tests are actually performed.
 *

    // If we clip the safe range used during the per-character tests so it is
    // below the values of characters in surrogate pairs, this cannot occur.
    // This approach does mean that we break out of the fast path code in cases
    // where we don't strictly need to, but this situation will almost never
    // occur in practice.
    if (safeMin >= Character.MIN_HIGH_SURROGATE) {

   *
   * <p>We have chosen this approach over at least two alternatives:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>We could change the serialization of this class incompatibly. We have reserved the right
   *       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually
   *       without trouble. In this case, my guess is that our chosen approach is even less likely

            buffer.order(java.nio.ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN);
            buffer.putInt((int) counter);
        } else {
            // SMB 3.0/3.0.2 CCM: Counter-based approach as per SMB3 specification
            final long counter = this.nonceCounter.incrementAndGet();
            final ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(nonce);
            buffer.order(java.nio.ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN);