int pos = indexIn(string);
    if (pos == -1) {
      return string;
    }

    char[] chars = string.toCharArray();
    int spread = 1;

    // This unusual loop comes from extensive benchmarking
    OUT:
    while (true) {
      pos++;
      while (true) {
        if (pos == chars.length) {
          break OUT;
        }
        if (matches(chars[pos])) {

  }

  /**
   * Calls {@code next()} on {@code iterator}, either {@code numberToAdvance} times or until {@code
   * hasNext()} returns {@code false}, whichever comes first.
   *
   * @return the number of elements the iterator was advanced
   * @since 13.0 (since 3.0 as {@code Iterators.skip})
   */
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue

    int pos = indexIn(string);
    if (pos == -1) {
      return string;
    }

    char[] chars = string.toCharArray();
    int spread = 1;

    // This unusual loop comes from extensive benchmarking
    OUT:
    while (true) {
      pos++;
      while (true) {
        if (pos == chars.length) {
          break OUT;
        }
        if (matches(chars[pos])) {

  // safely publish these objects and we won't need this whole discussion.
  // TODO(user,lukes): consider adding volatile to all these fields since in current known JVMs
  // that should resolve the issue. This comes at the cost of adding more write barriers to the
  // implementations.

  private Futures() {}

  /**
   * Creates a {@code ListenableFuture} which has its value set immediately upon construction. The

  }

  /**
   * Calls {@code next()} on {@code iterator}, either {@code numberToAdvance} times or until {@code
   * hasNext()} returns {@code false}, whichever comes first.
   *
   * @return the number of elements the iterator was advanced
   * @since 13.0 (since 3.0 as {@code Iterators.skip})
   */
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue