}

    // TODO let the scope handler deal with this
    private static boolean isCompilePathElement(final String scope) {
        return Artifact.SCOPE_COMPILE.equals(scope)
                || Artifact.SCOPE_PROVIDED.equals(scope)
                || Artifact.SCOPE_SYSTEM.equals(scope);
    }

    // TODO let the scope handler deal with this

      // It's a weird formula, but tests prove it works.
      int adjust = size() - 1;
      for (int i = 0; i < axes.size(); i++) {
        adjust *= 31;
        adjust = ~~adjust;
        // in GWT, we have to deal with integer overflow carefully
      }
      int hash = 1;
      for (Set<E> axis : axes) {
        hash = 31 * hash + (size() / axis.size() * axis.hashCode());

        hash = ~~hash;
      }

   *
   * if (guardExpression) {
   *    throw new BadException(badMsg(...));
   * }
   *
   * The alternative natural refactorings into void or Exception-returning methods are much slower.
   * This is a big deal - we're talking factors of 2-8 in microbenchmarks, not just 10-20%. (This is
   * a hotspot optimizer bug, which should be fixed, but that's a separate, big project).
   *

      HashMap<Object, Object> map1,
      HashMap<Object, Object> map2)
      throws Exception {
    // Only start measuring table size after the first element inserted, to
    // deal with empty-map optimization.
    map1.put(0, null);

    int initialBuckets = bucketsOf(map1);

    for (int i = 1; i < size; i++) {
      map1.put(i, null);
    }

      HashMap<Object, Object> map1,
      HashMap<Object, Object> map2)
      throws Exception {
    // Only start measuring table size after the first element inserted, to
    // deal with empty-map optimization.
    map1.put(0, null);

    int initialBuckets = bucketsOf(map1);

    for (int i = 1; i < size; i++) {
      map1.put(i, null);
    }