(v1, v2) -> {
                  throw new IllegalArgumentException("Multiple values for key: " + v1 + ", " + v2);
                }),
        (accum, t) -> {
          /*
           * We assign these to variables before calling checkNotNull to work around a bug in our
           * nullness checker.
           */
          K key = keyFunction.apply(t);
          V newValue = valueFunction.apply(t);

  }

  /*
   * To avoid the need to call requireNonNull so much, we could consider more clever approaches,
   * such as:
   *
   * - Make checkOpen return the non-null `seq`. Then callers can assign that to a local variable or
   *   even back to `this.seq`. However, that may suggest that we're defending against concurrent
   *   mutation, which is not an actual risk because we use `synchronized`.

   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>This method is suitable for the common use case of dividing work among buckets that meet the
   * following conditions:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>You want to assign the same fraction of inputs to each bucket.
   *   <li>When you reduce the number of buckets, you can accept that the most recently added

     *
     * @param id            the unique identifier of the repository
     * @param url           the URL of the repository
     * @param layout        the layout of the repository
     * @param uniqueVersion whether to assign each snapshot a unique version
     */
    public DefaultArtifactRepository(String id, String url, ArtifactRepositoryLayout layout, boolean uniqueVersion) {
        super(id, url);
        this.layout = layout;
    }

                (v1, v2) -> {
                  throw new IllegalArgumentException("Multiple values for key: " + v1 + ", " + v2);
                }),
        (accum, t) -> {
          /*
           * We assign these to variables before calling checkNotNull to work around a bug in our
           * nullness checker.
           */
          K key = keyFunction.apply(t);
          V newValue = valueFunction.apply(t);

    Ordering<Number> j = objects.compound(numbers.compound(objects)); // bad IDEA
    Ordering<Number> k = objects.compound(objects.compound(numbers));

    // You can also arbitrarily assign a more restricted type - not an intended
    // feature, exactly, but unavoidable (I think) and harmless
    Ordering<Integer> l = objects.compound(numbers);

    // This correctly doesn't work:

    Ordering<Number> j = objects.compound(numbers.compound(objects)); // bad IDEA
    Ordering<Number> k = objects.compound(objects.compound(numbers));

    // You can also arbitrarily assign a more restricted type - not an intended
    // feature, exactly, but unavoidable (I think) and harmless
    Ordering<Integer> l = objects.compound(numbers);

    // This correctly doesn't work:

   * Returns the innermost cause of {@code throwable}. The first throwable in a chain provides
   * context from when the error or exception was initially detected. Example usage:
   *
   * <pre>
   * assertEquals("Unable to assign a customer id", Throwables.getRootCause(e).getMessage());
   * </pre>
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if there is a loop in the causal chain
   */
  public static Throwable getRootCause(Throwable throwable) {

   * Returns the innermost cause of {@code throwable}. The first throwable in a chain provides
   * context from when the error or exception was initially detected. Example usage:
   *
   * <pre>
   * assertEquals("Unable to assign a customer id", Throwables.getRootCause(e).getMessage());
   * </pre>
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if there is a loop in the causal chain
   */
  public static Throwable getRootCause(Throwable throwable) {

    // Checking isDone and listeners != TOMBSTONE may seem redundant, but our contract for
    // addListener says that listeners execute 'immediate' if the future isDone(). However, our
    // protocol for completing a future is to assign the value field (which sets isDone to true) and
    // then to release waiters, followed by executing afterDone(), followed by releasing listeners.