@Override
    public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      return (target instanceof Byte) && Bytes.indexOf(array, (Byte) target, start, end) != -1;
    }

    @Override
    public int indexOf(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      if (target instanceof Byte) {
        int i = Bytes.indexOf(array, (Byte) target, start, end);

    @Override
    public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      return (target instanceof Float) && Floats.indexOf(array, (Float) target, start, end) != -1;
    }

    @Override
    public int indexOf(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      if (target instanceof Float) {

    public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      return (target instanceof Character)
          && Chars.indexOf(array, (Character) target, start, end) != -1;
    }

    @Override
    public int indexOf(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      if (target instanceof Character) {

    public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      return (target instanceof Double)
          && Doubles.indexOf(array, (Double) target, start, end) != -1;
    }

    @Override
    public int indexOf(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      if (target instanceof Double) {

    @Override
    public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      return (target instanceof Integer) && Ints.indexOf(array, (Integer) target, start, end) != -1;
    }

    @Override
    public int indexOf(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      if (target instanceof Integer) {

    // my best guess is that the jdk authors have spent more time optimizing that callpath than this
    // one. (StringCoding$StringDecoder vs. StreamDecoder).  StringCoding has a ton of special cases
    // theoretically we could duplicate all that logic here to try to beat 'new String' or at least
    // come close.
    USING_DECODER_WITH_SIZE_HINT {
      @Override

    // my best guess is that the jdk authors have spent more time optimizing that callpath than this
    // one. (StringCoding$StringDecoder vs. StreamDecoder).  StringCoding has a ton of special cases
    // theoretically we could duplicate all that logic here to try to beat 'new String' or at least
    // come close.
    USING_DECODER_WITH_SIZE_HINT {
      @Override

 * existing users, but it can't *fix* existing users because any users who needed
 * `Function<@Nullable A, @Nullable B>` already had to find a workaround. Still, there is a *ton* of
 * fallout from trying to switch. I would be shocked if the switch would offer benefits to anywhere
 * near enough users to justify the costs.
 *

   * checkNotNull *should* be annotated to require it to be non-null.
   *
   * However, for a variety of reasons, Google developers have written a ton of code over the past
   * decade that assumes that they can use checkNotNull for non-precondition checks. I had hoped to
   * take a principled stand on this, but the amount of such code is simply overwhelming. To avoid

    public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      return (target instanceof Boolean)
          && Booleans.indexOf(array, (Boolean) target, start, end) != -1;
    }

    @Override
    public int indexOf(@CheckForNull Object target) {
      // Overridden to prevent a ton of boxing
      if (target instanceof Boolean) {