// Can't call with too loose a key:
    // transformEntries(map1, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map2, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map3, transformer);

    // Can't call with too loose a value:
    // transformEntries(map1, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map4, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map7, transformer);
  }

            return packagedArtifactFile;
        }

        if (!hasBeenPackagedDuringThisSession(project)) {
            // fallback to loose class files only if artifacts haven't been packaged yet
            // and only for plain old jars. Not war files, not ear files, not anything else.
            return determineBuildOutputDirectoryForArtifact(project, artifact);

    // Can't call with too loose a key:
    // transformEntries(map1, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map2, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map3, transformer);

    // Can't call with too loose a value:
    // transformEntries(map1, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map4, transformer);
    // transformEntries(map7, transformer);
  }

be <i>exact</i> or <i>loose</i>.
As unification recursively descends a composite type structure,
the matching mode used for elements of the type, the <i>element matching mode</i>,
remains the same as the matching mode except when two types are unified for
<a href="#Assignability">assignability</a> (<code>≡<sub>A</sub></code>):
in this case, the matching mode is <i>loose</i> at the top level but

   * a good policy, especially because, in order for the test to pass, the
   * parameter must be misleadingly annotated as @Nullable. I suspect that
   * we'll want to remove @Nullable, add an eager checkNotNull, and loosen up
   * testRemove_nullAllowed.
   */
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue
  @Override
  public int remove(@Nullable Object element, int occurrences) {
    if (occurrences == 0) {
      return count(element);
    }

		tin := []byte(tt.in)
		a := Runes(tin)
		if !slices.Equal(a, tt.out) {
			t.Errorf("Runes(%q) = %v; want %v", tin, a, tt.out)
			continue
		}
		if !tt.lossy {
			// can only test reassembly if we didn't lose information
			s := string(a)
			if s != tt.in {
				t.Errorf("string(Runes(%q)) = %x; want %x", tin, s, tin)
			}
		}
	}
}

type TrimTest struct {
	f            string

      </fields>
      <comment>We could probably have a specific element for a dev mailing list for things like CI,
        and maybe even a specific element for the user and scm mailing lists. Then leave the more
        lose structure for any other type of mailing list.</comment>
      <codeSegments>
        <codeSegment>
          <version>4.0.0+</version>
          <code>
            <![CDATA[
    /**