* consider the following:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>it may split surrogate pairs
   *   <li>it may split characters and combining characters
   *   <li>it does not consider word boundaries
   *   <li>if truncating for display to users, there are other considerations that must be taken
   *       into account
   *   <li>the appropriate truncation indicator may be locale-dependent

        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableIntArray.of(1, 3))
        .addEqualityGroup(ImmutableIntArray.of(1, 2, 3))
        .testEquals();
  }

  /**
   * This is probably a weird and hacky way to test what we're really trying to test, but hey, it
   * caught a bug.
   */
  public void testTrimmed() {
    ImmutableIntArray iia = ImmutableIntArray.of(0, 1, 3);
    assertDoesntActuallyTrim(iia);

          return null;
        }
      }
      return topMetaIterator;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean hasNext() {
      while (!checkNotNull(iterator).hasNext()) {
        // this weird checkNotNull positioning appears required by our tests, which expect
        // both hasNext and next to throw NPE if an input iterator is null.

        topMetaIterator = getTopMetaIterator();

   * bits.
   *
   * @param h hash code
   */
  static int rehash(int h) {
    // Spread bits to regularize both segment and index locations,
    // using variant of single-word Wang/Jenkins hash.
    // TODO(kevinb): use Hashing/move this to Hashing?
    h += (h << 15) ^ 0xffffcd7d;
    h ^= (h >>> 10);
    h += (h << 3);
    h ^= (h >>> 6);
    h += (h << 2) + (h << 14);

   * passing a TypeToken<X>. This would be invalid. Maybe we could accept a TypeParameter<@PolyNull
   * X> if we support such a thing? It would be weird or misleading for users to be able to pass
   * `new TypeParameter<@Nullable T>() {}` and have it act as a plain `TypeParameter<T>`, but
   * hopefully no one would do that, anyway. See also the comment on TypeParameter itself.

&m&ayuok?ihsogak??si?yonak??e&banawak?n&at&akan?imanim??uka??tomoonihsin??i&adnesamustas?k&azarukam?oih??m&ama?uzi??usuy??nesi?o&knik?os?tomustam??uzimurat???rih!.&a&ka&n?s??m&ayukuf?i&hsorihihsagih?j&ate?imakikaso????r&a&bohs?h&ekat?im???es??tiak?wiad??e&kato?ruk??i&h&ci&akustah?mono?nihs??s&inares?oyim???manimasa?uk??negokikesnij?o&gnoh?namuk??uhcuf????uk&ot!.&a&bihci?mi&hsu&kot?stamok??m??wagakan??egihsustam?i&gum?h&coganas?soyim??kijaw?m&anim?uzia??ukihsihs??nan&a?iak??o&nati?turan????uf!.&a...

package com.google.common.collect;

import com.google.common.annotations.GwtCompatible;
import java.util.Collection;

/**
 * Implementation of {@link ImmutableListMultimap} with no entries.
 *
 * @author Mike Ward
 */
@GwtCompatible(serializable = true)
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
class EmptyImmutableSetMultimap extends ImmutableSetMultimap<Object, Object> {

            return AbstractNetwork.this.edges().size();
          }

          // Mostly safe: We check contains(u) before calling successors(u), so we perform unsafe
          // operations only in weird cases like checking for an EndpointPair<ArrayList> in a
          // Network<LinkedList>.
          @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
          @Override
          public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object obj) {

  }

  // We ought to be able to implement GenericDeclaration instead its parent AnnotatedElement.
  // That would give us this method declaration. But for some reason, implementing
  // GenericDeclaration leads to weird errors in Android tests:
  // IncompatibleClassChangeError: interface not implemented
  /** See {@link java.lang.reflect.GenericDeclaration#getTypeParameters()}. */
  public abstract TypeVariable<?>[] getTypeParameters();

    assertEquals(6, queue.size());
    assertEquals(8, queue.capacity());
    assertEquals(42, queue.maximumSize);
    assertSame(SOME_COMPARATOR, queue.comparator());
  }

  // TODO: tests that check the weird interplay between expected size,
  // maximum size, size of initial contents, default capacity...

  private static void checkNatural(MinMaxPriorityQueue<Integer> queue) {