abstract ImmutableCollection<E> delegateCollection();

  @Override
  public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
    // The collection's contains() is at least as fast as ImmutableList's
    // and is often faster.
    return delegateCollection().contains(target);
  }

  @Override
  public int size() {
    return delegateCollection().size();
  }

  @Override
  public boolean isEmpty() {

  abstract ImmutableCollection<E> delegateCollection();

  @Override
  public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
    // The collection's contains() is at least as fast as ImmutableList's
    // and is often faster.
    return delegateCollection().contains(target);
  }

  @Override
  public int size() {
    return delegateCollection().size();
  }

  @Override
  public boolean isEmpty() {

   *
   * <p><b>Warning:</b> This method, which reencodes the input before processing it, is useful only
   * for cross-language compatibility. For other use cases, prefer {@link #putUnencodedChars}, which
   * is faster, produces the same output across Java releases, and processes every {@code char} in
   * the input, even if some are invalid.
   */
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue

 * iterators that don't support {@code remove()}. Otherwise, all optional operations are supported.
 * Null row keys, columns keys, and values are not supported.
 *
 * <p>Lookups by row key are often faster than lookups by column key, because the data is stored in
 * a {@code Map<R, Map<C, V>>}. A method call like {@code column(columnKey).get(rowKey)} still runs

  private final ElementOrder<E> edgeOrder;

  final MapIteratorCache<N, NetworkConnections<N, E>> nodeConnections;

  // We could make this a Map<E, EndpointPair<N>>. It would make incidentNodes(edge) slightly
  // faster, but also make Networks consume 5 to 20+% (increasing with average degree) more memory.
  final MapIteratorCache<E, N> edgeToReferenceNode; // referenceNode == source if directed

   *   <li>{@code [3..6]} encloses {@code [4..4)} (even though the latter is empty)
   *   <li>{@code (3..6]} does not enclose {@code [3..6]}
   *   <li>{@code [4..5]} does not enclose {@code (3..6)} (even though it contains every value
   *       contained by the latter range)
   *   <li>{@code [3..6]} does not enclose {@code (1..1]} (even though it contains every value
   *       contained by the latter range)
   * </ul>
   *

   * moved to index "distance", and the element at index {@code i} ends up at index {@code (distance
   * + i) mod array.length}. This is equivalent to {@code Collections.rotate(Booleans.asList(array),
   * distance)}, but is somewhat faster.
   *
   * <p>The provided "distance" may be negative, which will rotate left.
   *
   * @since 32.0.0
   */
  public static void rotate(boolean[] array, int distance) {

   * #log2(double, RoundingMode)} is faster.
   */
  public static double log2(double x) {
    return log(x) / LN_2; // surprisingly within 1 ulp according to tests
  }

  /**
   * Returns the base 2 logarithm of a double value, rounded with the specified rounding mode to an
   * {@code int}.
   *
   * <p>Regardless of the rounding mode, this is faster than {@code (int) log2(x)}.
   *

       * Static final fields are presumed to be fastest, based on our experience with
       * UnsignedBytesBenchmark. TODO(cpovirk): benchmark this
       */
      /*
       * A CopyOnWriteArraySet<WeakReference> is faster than a newSetFromMap of a MapMaker map with
       * weakKeys() and concurrencyLevel(1), even up to at least 12 cached exception types.
       */

        int loCount = loChars != null ? loChars.length : 1;
        char[] output = new char[hiCount + loCount];
        if (hiChars != null) {
          // TODO: Is this faster than System.arraycopy() for small arrays?
          for (int n = 0; n < hiChars.length; ++n) {
            output[n] = hiChars[n];
          }
        } else {
          output[0] = surrogateChars[0];
        }