the time to discuss them in detail will make it much clearer why this feature should be
        added to Guava.


        Please fill out the following fields to give us a better understanding of your proposed
        feature and its potential value for other Guava users.

  - type: textarea
    attributes:
      label: 1. What are you trying to do?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: textarea
    attributes:

      upEnd = other.getUpperEndpoint();
      upType = other.getUpperBoundType();
    } else if (other.hasUpperBound()) {
      int cmp = comparator.compare(getUpperEndpoint(), other.getUpperEndpoint());
      if (cmp > 0 || (cmp == 0 && other.getUpperBoundType() == OPEN)) {
        upEnd = other.getUpperEndpoint();
        upType = other.getUpperBoundType();
      }
    }

    if (hasLowBound && hasUpBound) {

        theUnsafe.putLong(array, (long) offset + BYTE_ARRAY_BASE_OFFSET, littleEndianValue);
      }
    };

    // Provides load and store operations that use native instructions to get better performance.
    private static final Unsafe theUnsafe;

    // The offset to the first element in a byte array.
    private static final int BYTE_ARRAY_BASE_OFFSET;

    /**

 * better) behavior</a> when multiple threads attempt concurrent mutations. Its equivalent to {@code
 * CacheBuilder} is its <a
 * href="https://www.javadoc.io/doc/com.github.ben-manes.caffeine/caffeine/latest/com.github.benmanes.caffeine/com/github/benmanes/caffeine/cache/Caffeine.html">{@code
 * Caffeine}</a> class. Caffeine offers better performance, more features (including asynchronous

 * one can get a better result, as only a few registry suffixes are addressable. However, the most
 * useful test to determine if a domain is a plausible web host is {@link #hasPublicSuffix()}. This
 * will return {@code true} for many domains which (currently) are not hosts, such as {@code "com"},
 * but given that any public suffix may become a host without warning, it is better to err on the

   *
   * <p><b>Performance note:</b> According to our
   * benchmarking
   * on Open JDK 7, {@link #immutableSortedCopy} generally performs better (in both time and space)
   * than this method, and this method in turn generally performs better than copying the list and
   * calling {@link Collections#sort(List)}.
   */
  // TODO(kevinb): rerun benchmarks including new options

    Builder<String, Integer> builder =
        new Builder<String, Integer>()
            .put("one", 1)
            .put("one", 1); // throwing on this line would be even better

    try {
      builder.build();
      fail();
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException expected) {
      assertThat(expected.getMessage()).contains("one");
    }
  }

  public void testOf() {

      } catch (IllegalArgumentException expected) {
        // success
      }
    }
  }

  /*
   * We've split testFuzzyCompare() into multiple tests so that our internal Android test runner has
   * a better chance of completing each within its per-test-method timeout.
   */

  public void testFuzzyCompare0() {
    runTestFuzzyCompare(0);
  }

  public void testFuzzyCompare1() {
    runTestFuzzyCompare(1);

  // The organization of this test class is unusual, as it's not done by
  // method, but by overall "scenario". Also, the variety of actual tests we
  // do borders on absurd overkill. Better safe than sorry, though?

  @GwtIncompatible // java.util.BitSet
  public void testSetBits() {
    doTestSetBits(CharMatcher.any());
    doTestSetBits(CharMatcher.none());
    doTestSetBits(is('a'));

  // The organization of this test class is unusual, as it's not done by
  // method, but by overall "scenario". Also, the variety of actual tests we
  // do borders on absurd overkill. Better safe than sorry, though?

  @GwtIncompatible // java.util.BitSet
  public void testSetBits() {
    doTestSetBits(CharMatcher.any());
    doTestSetBits(CharMatcher.none());
    doTestSetBits(is('a'));