@Override
  public boolean isEmpty() {
    /*
     * Sum per-segment modCounts to avoid mis-reporting when elements are concurrently added and
     * removed in one segment while checking another, in which case the table was never actually
     * empty at any point. (The sum ensures accuracy up through at least 1<<31 per-segment
     * modifications before recheck.)  Method containsValue() uses similar constructions for

        return i;
      }
    }
    return -1;
  }

  /**
   * Returns the number of matching {@code char}s found in a character sequence.
   *
   * <p>Counts 2 per supplementary character, such as for {@link #whitespace}().{@link #negate}().
   */
  public int countIn(CharSequence sequence) {
    int count = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < sequence.length(); i++) {

   * {@code combinations} does not retain the individual subsets.
   *
   * @param set the set of elements to take combinations of
   * @param size the number of elements per combination
   * @return the set of all combinations of {@code size} elements from {@code set}
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code size} is not between 0 and {@code set.size()}
   *     inclusive

   * once after loading completes). Much internal cache management is performed at the segment
   * granularity. For example, access queues and write queues are kept per segment when they are
   * required by the selected eviction algorithm. As such, when writing unit tests it is not
   * uncommon to specify {@code concurrencyLevel(1)} in order to achieve more deterministic eviction
   * behavior.

        return i;
      }
    }
    return -1;
  }

  /**
   * Returns the number of matching {@code char}s found in a character sequence.
   *
   * <p>Counts 2 per supplementary character, such as for {@link #whitespace}().{@link #negate}().
   */
  public int countIn(CharSequence sequence) {
    int count = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < sequence.length(); i++) {

潟新?玉埼?田秋?知&愛?高??縄沖?良奈?葉千?賀&佐?滋??道海北?都京?重三?野長?阜岐?阪大?馬群???k!.&art?gro?moc?per?ude?vog???l&eh?l??m!.uj,ac?j??nd?o&g?h&pih?s!.&esab,xilpoh,ysrab,???lnud?oc?t!.&lldtn,snd-won,???pa!.&0mroftalp,a&rusah,ted,?bew:erif,,cilcyc,e&erf-korgn,gatskrelc,kalfwons:.kniletavirp,,lbatpada,niln&igol,okoob,?tupmocegde,virdhsalfno,?ilressem,k&orgn,relc,?le&crev,napysae,?maerdepyt,naecolatigidno,poon,r&cne,emarf,?sserpirots,t&i&belet,l&maerts,per:.di,,??xenw,?wolfrettulf,yfilten,??ra&a?hs??u&ekam?llag?org!.esruocsid,...

         * the new one. The result is a ConcurrentModificationException or other bad behavior.
         *
         * (If we decide that we really, really hate allocating two Iterators per cycle instead of
         * one, we can optimistically store the new Iterator and then be willing to throw it out if
         * the user calls remove().)
         */