/*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (Perhaps it should also have required that its cause was a RuntimeException. However, that

  public void add(double x, double y) {
    // We extend the recursive expression for the one-variable case at Art of Computer Programming
    // vol. 2, Knuth, 4.2.2, (16) to the two-variable case. We have two value series x_i and y_i.
    // We define the arithmetic means X_n = 1/n \sum_{i=1}^n x_i, and Y_n = 1/n \sum_{i=1}^n y_i.
    // We also define the sum of the products of the differences from the means

       * - columnIterator.remove() succeeded, so it must have returned a value, so it must have been
       * initialized by next() -- which initializes rowEntry, too.
       *
       * - rowEntry isn't cleared except below. If it was cleared below, then either
       *   columnIterator.remove() would have failed above (if the user hasn't called next() since
       *   then) or rowEntry would have been initialized by next() (as discussed above).
       */

   * safe to do so. The exact circumstances under which a copy will or will not be performed are
   * undocumented and subject to change.
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if two keys have the same value or two values have the same
   *     key
   * @throws NullPointerException if any key or value in {@code map} is null
   */
  public static <K, V> ImmutableBiMap<K, V> copyOf(Map<? extends K, ? extends V> map) {

 * second invocation, so implementors have made various choices, including:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>returning the same iterator again
 *   <li>throwing an exception of some kind
 *   <li>or the usual, <i>robust</i> behavior, which all known {@link Collection} implementations
 *       have, of returning a new, independent iterator
 * </ul>
 *

    peekingIterator.remove();
    assertEquals("Should have removed an element", 2, list.size());
    assertFalse("Second element should be gone", list.contains("B"));
  }

  static class ThrowsAtEndException extends RuntimeException {
    /* nothing */
  }

  /**
   * This Iterator claims to have more elements than the underlying iterable, but when you try to

public interface Function<F extends @Nullable Object, T extends @Nullable Object>
{
  /**
   * Returns the result of applying this function to {@code input}. This method is <i>generally
   * expected</i>, but not absolutely required, to have the following properties:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>Its execution does not cause any observable side effects.
   *   <li>The computation is <i>consistent with equals</i>; that is, {@link Objects#equal

    }

    // All of the seed values should have been visible, so we should have gotten removal
    // notifications for all of them.
    for (int i = 0; i < nSeededEntries; i++) {
      assertEquals("b" + i, removalNotifications.get("b" + i));
    }

    // Each of the values added to the map should either still be there, or have seen a removal
    // notification.

    }
    assertNull(
        "The array element immediately following the end of the collection should be nulled",
        array[getNumElements()]);
    // array[getNumElements() + 1] might or might not have been nulled
  }

  @CollectionFeature.Require(KNOWN_ORDER)
  public void testToArray_oversizedArray_ordered() {
    E[] array = getSubjectGenerator().createArray(getNumElements() + 2);

    }
    assertNull(
        "The array element immediately following the end of the collection should be nulled",
        array[getNumElements()]);
    // array[getNumElements() + 1] might or might not have been nulled
  }

  @CollectionFeature.Require(KNOWN_ORDER)
  public void testToArray_oversizedArray_ordered() {
    E[] array = getSubjectGenerator().createArray(getNumElements() + 2);