runnables = null; // allow GC to free listeners even if this stays around for a while.
    }
    // If we succeeded then list holds all the runnables we to execute. The pairs in the stack are
    // in the opposite order from how they were added so we need to reverse the list to fulfill our
    // contract.
    // This is somewhat annoying, but turns out to be very fast in practice. Alternatively, we could

  }

  public void testDeadlock_twoLocks() {
    // Establish an acquisition order of lockA -> lockB.
    lockA.lock();
    lockB.lock();
    lockA.unlock();
    lockB.unlock();

    // The opposite order should fail (Policies.THROW).
    PotentialDeadlockException firstException = null;
    lockB.lock();
    PotentialDeadlockException expected =

  }

  public void testDeadlock_twoLocks() {
    // Establish an acquisition order of lockA -> lockB.
    lockA.lock();
    lockB.lock();
    lockA.unlock();
    lockB.unlock();

    // The opposite order should fail (Policies.THROW).
    PotentialDeadlockException firstException = null;
    lockB.lock();
    PotentialDeadlockException expected =

        // has already been moved.
        parent = elementData(removeIndex);
      } else {
        parent = elementData(getParentIndex(removeIndex));
      }
      // bubble it up the opposite heap
      if (otherHeap.bubbleUpAlternatingLevels(crossOver, toTrickle) < removeIndex) {
        return new MoveDesc<>(toTrickle, parent);
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    }

        // has already been moved.
        parent = elementData(removeIndex);
      } else {
        parent = elementData(getParentIndex(removeIndex));
      }
      // bubble it up the opposite heap
      if (otherHeap.bubbleUpAlternatingLevels(crossOver, toTrickle) < removeIndex) {
        return new MoveDesc<>(toTrickle, parent);
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    }

     * constructor's. This is an arbitrary rule since no existing language spec mandates one way or
     * the other. From the declaration syntax, the class type parameter appears first, but the call
     * syntax may show up in opposite order such as {@code new <A>Foo<B>()}.
     */
    @Override
    public final TypeVariable<?>[] getTypeParameters() {
      TypeVariable<?>[] declaredByClass = getDeclaringClass().getTypeParameters();

     * execute all peer settings logic on the writer thread. This relies on the fact that the
     * writer task queue won't reorder tasks; otherwise settings could be applied in the opposite
     * order than received.
     */
    fun applyAndAckSettings(
      clearPrevious: Boolean,
      settings: Settings,
    ) {
      var delta: Long
      var streamsToNotify: Array<Http2Stream>?

But still, FastAPI got quite some inspiration from Requests.

**Requests** is a library to *interact* with APIs (as a client), while **FastAPI** is a library to *build* APIs (as a server).

They are, more or less, at opposite ends, complementing each other.

Requests has a very simple and intuitive design, it's very easy to use, with sensible defaults. But at the same time, it's very powerful and customizable.

does not work in the way described above and you are used to defining trivial compute-only *path operation functions* with plain `def` for a tiny performance gain (about 100 nanoseconds), please note that in **FastAPI** the effect would be quite opposite. In these cases, it's better to use `async def` unless your *path operation functions* use code that performs blocking <abbr title="Input/Output: disk reading or writing, network communications.">I/O</abbr>.

Still, in both situations,...

   *     filter. If the bits haven't changed, this <i>might</i> be the first time {@code object} has
   *     been added to the filter. Note that {@code put(t)} always returns the <i>opposite</i>
   *     result to what {@code mightContain(t)} would have returned at the time it is called.
   * @since 12.0 (present in 11.0 with {@code void} return type})
   */
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue