TF_Operation* neg = Neg(feed, func_graph_, s_, "neg");
  Define(-1, {}, {feed}, {neg}, {"negation"});

  // Use, run, and verify
  TF_Operation* func_feed = Placeholder(host_graph_, s_);
  TF_Operation* func_op = Use({func_feed});
  Run({{func_feed, Int32Tensor(3)}}, func_op, -3);
  VerifyFDef({"neg"}, {{"negation_0", DT_INT32}}, {{"negation", DT_INT32}},

import (
	"database/sql"
	"database/sql/driver"
	"go/ast"
	"reflect"
)

// Expression expression interface
type Expression interface {
	Build(builder Builder)
}

// NegationExpressionBuilder negation expression builder
type NegationExpressionBuilder interface {
	NegationBuild(builder Builder)
}

// Expr raw expression
type Expr struct {
	SQL                string
	Vars               []interface{}

   * on {@link Platform} so that we can have different behavior in GWT.
   *
   * <p>This implementation tries to be smart in a number of ways. It recognizes cases where the
   * negation is cheaper to precompute than the matcher itself; it tries to build small hash tables
   * for matchers that only match a few characters, and so on. In the worst-case scenario, it

   * on {@link Platform} so that we can have different behavior in GWT.
   *
   * <p>This implementation tries to be smart in a number of ways. It recognizes cases where the
   * negation is cheaper to precompute than the matcher itself; it tries to build small hash tables
   * for matchers that only match a few characters, and so on. In the worst-case scenario, it

   *   <li>The {@link Predicate} returned by this method catches {@link ClassCastException} and
   *       {@link NullPointerException}.
   *   <li>Code that chains multiple predicates together (especially negations) may be more readable
   *       using this method. For example, {@code not(in(target))} is generally more readable than
   *       {@code not(target::contains)}.

   * than the straightforward ternary expression.
   */
  @VisibleForTesting
  static int lessThanBranchFree(long x, long y) {
    // The double negation is optimized away by normal Java, but is necessary for GWT
    // to make sure bit twiddling works as expected.
    return (int) (~~(x - y) >>> (Long.SIZE - 1));
  }

  /**

<p>
For integer operands, the unary operators
<code>+</code>, <code>-</code>, and <code>^</code> are defined as
follows:
</p>

<pre class="grammar">
+x                          is 0 + x
-x    negation              is 0 - x
^x    bitwise complement    is m ^ x  with m = "all bits set to 1" for unsigned x
                                      and  m = -1 for signed x
</pre>

XplusYsq field.Element XX.Square(&p.X) YY.Square(&p.Y) ZZ2.Square(&p.Z) ZZ2.Add(&ZZ2, &ZZ2) XplusYsq.Add(&p.X, &p.Y) XplusYsq.Square(&XplusYsq) v.Y.Add(&YY, &XX) v.Z.Subtract(&YY, &XX) v.X.Subtract(&XplusYsq, &v.Y) v.T.Subtract(&ZZ2, &v.Z) return v } // Negation. // Negate sets v = -p, and returns v. func (v *Point) Negate(p *Point) *Point { checkInitialized(p) v.x.Negate(&p.x) v.y.Set(&p.y) v.z.Set(&p.z) v.t.Negate(&p.t) return v } // Equal returns 1 if v is equivalent to u, and 0 otherwise. func (v *Point)...