*       type.
 * </dl>
 *
 * <h2>Ranges</h2>
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>{@link Range}
 *   <li>{@link RangeMap}
 *   <li>{@link RangeSet}
 *   <li>{@link DiscreteDomain}
 *   <li>{@link ContiguousSet}
 * </ul>
 *
 * <h2>Classes of static utility methods</h2>
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>{@link Collections2}
 *   <li>{@link Comparators}
 *   <li>{@link Iterables}

 * map from keys to <i>nonempty</i> collections of values:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>a → 1, 2
 *   <li>b → 3
 * </ul>
 *
 * ... or as a single "flattened" collection of key-value pairs:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>a → 1
 *   <li>a → 2
 *   <li>b → 3
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p><b>Important:</b> although the first interpretation resembles how most multimaps are

 *
 * <h3>String utilities</h3>
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>{@link Ascii}
 *   <li>{@link CaseFormat}
 *   <li>{@link CharMatcher}
 *   <li>{@link Splitter}
 *   <li>{@link Strings}
 * </ul>
 *
 * <h3>Function types</h3>
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>{@link Converter}
 *   <li>{@link Equivalence}
 * </ul>
 *
 * <h3>Other</h3>
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>{@link Enums}
 *   <li>{@link MoreObjects}

   * consistentHash(h, n)} equals:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>{@code n - 1}, with approximate probability {@code 1/n}
   *   <li>{@code consistentHash(h, n - 1)}, otherwise (probability {@code 1 - 1/n})
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>This method is suitable for the common use case of dividing work among buckets that meet the
   * following conditions:
   *
   * <ul>

 * 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>
 *
 * <p>Because of this situation, any public method accepting an iterable should invoke the {@code

   * 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
   *       Objects.equal}{@code (a, b)} implies that {@code predicate.apply(a) ==
   *       predicate.apply(b))}.
   * </ul>
   *

 * annotated with LargeTest.
 *
 * <p>Why use a custom annotation instead of {@code android.test.suitebuilder.annotation.Suppress}?
 * I'm not completely sure that this is the right choice, but it has various advantages:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>An annotation named just "Suppress" might someday be treated by a non-Android tool as a
 *       suppression. This would follow the precedent of many of our annotation processors, which

 * {@code tryLock()} methods will result in the execution of the {@link Policy} specified when
 * creating the factory. The currently available policies are:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>DISABLED
 *   <li>WARN
 *   <li>THROW
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>The locks created by a factory instance will detect lock acquisition cycles with locks created

        Joiner joiner,
        Pattern pattern,
        UnsignedInteger ui,
        UnsignedLong ul,
        StringBuilder sb,
        Predicate<?> pred,
        Function<?, ?> func,
        Object obj) {
      delegate.foo(
          s, r, n, it, b, eq, e, in, c, ord, charset, unit, cls, joiner, pattern, ui, ul, sb, pred,
          func, obj);
    }

    @Override
    public String toString() {

 *   <li>comparing each pair of objects from different equality groups returns false
 *   <li>the hash codes of any two equal objects are equal
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>When a test fails, the error message labels the objects involved in the failed comparison as
 * follows:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>"{@code [group }<i>i</i>{@code , item }<i>j</i>{@code ]}" refers to the