* Otherwise, at least reduce <i>explicit</i> dependencies on this type by using lambda expressions
 * or method references instead of classes, leaving your code easier to migrate in the future.
 *
 * <p>To use an existing function (say, named {@code function}) in a context where the <i>other
 * type</i> of function is expected, use the method reference {@code function::apply}. A future

		},
		{
			in:  "memeqbody",
			pkg: "",
			sym: "memeqbody",
		},
		{
			in:  `example%2ecom.Bar`,
			pkg: `example%2ecom`,
			sym: "Bar",
		},
		{
			// Not a real generated symbol name, but easier to catch the general parameter form.
			in:  `foo.Bar[sync/atomic.Uint64]`,
			pkg: `foo`,
			sym: "Bar[sync/atomic.Uint64]",
		},
		{
			in:  `example%2ecom.Bar[sync/atomic.Uint64]`,
			pkg: `example%2ecom`,

 * Otherwise, at least reduce <i>explicit</i> dependencies on this type by using lambda expressions
 * or method references instead of classes, leaving your code easier to migrate in the future.
 *
 * <p>To use an existing supplier instance (say, named {@code supplier}) in a context where the
 * <i>other type</i> of supplier is expected, use the method reference {@code supplier::get}. A

 * Otherwise, at least reduce <i>explicit</i> dependencies on this type by using lambda expressions
 * or method references instead of classes, leaving your code easier to migrate in the future.
 *
 * <p>To use a reference of this type (say, named {@code guavaPredicate}) in a context where {@code
 * java.util.function.Predicate} is expected, use the method reference {@code

    validations:
      required: false

  - type: textarea
    id: learning-curve
    attributes:
      label: "Would this change make Go easier or harder to learn, and why?"

  - type: textarea
    id: cost-description
    attributes:
      label: "Cost Description"
      description: "What is the cost of this proposal? (Every language change has a cost)"

   * invokeAny} which are pending serial execution, even the subset of the tasks that have not yet
   * started execution. It is unclear from the {@code ExecutorService} specification if these should
   * be included, and it's much easier to implement the interpretation that they not be. Finally, a
   * call to {@code shutdown} or {@code shutdownNow} may result in concurrent calls to {@code

    validations:
      required: true

  - type: markdown
    attributes:
      value: >
        Comparing two approaches to a use case side by side can make it easier to examine the
        differences between them.


        Additionally, it's very useful to us if you can provide a "straw API" — what the

   * invokeAny} which are pending serial execution, even the subset of the tasks that have not yet
   * started execution. It is unclear from the {@code ExecutorService} specification if these should
   * be included, and it's much easier to implement the interpretation that they not be. Finally, a
   * call to {@code shutdown} or {@code shutdownNow} may result in concurrent calls to {@code

 * Futures#transform(ListenableFuture, com.google.common.base.Function, Executor) Futures.transform}
 * (or {@link FluentFuture#transform(com.google.common.base.Function, Executor)
 * FluentFuture.transform}), but you will often find it easier to use a framework. Frameworks
 * automate the process, often adding features like monitoring, debugging, and cancellation.
 * Examples of frameworks include:
 *
 * <ul>

    Optional<String> optionalName = Optional.fromNullable("bob");
    assertEquals("bob", optionalName.get());
  }

  public void testFromNullable_null() {
    // not promised by spec, but easier to test
    assertSame(Optional.absent(), Optional.fromNullable(null));
  }

  public void testIsPresent_no() {
    assertFalse(Optional.absent().isPresent());
  }