* uniform, the actual concurrency observed may vary. Ideally, you should choose a value to
   * accommodate as many threads as will ever concurrently modify the table. Using a significantly
   * higher value than you need can waste space and time, and a significantly lower value can lead
   * to thread contention. But overestimates and underestimates within an order of magnitude do not

       *
       * - in the "reentrant submit" case of `execute` (in which case we must have started running a
       *   user task -- which means that we already got past this code (or else we exited early
       *   above))
       */
      // Unconditionally set; there is no risk of throwing away a queued task from another thread,

    assertEquals("", is('a').retainFrom(""));
  }

  public void testPrecomputedOptimizations() {
    // These are testing behavior that's never promised by the API.
    // Some matchers are so efficient that it is a waste of effort to
    // build a precomputed version.
    CharMatcher m1 = is('x');
    assertSame(m1, m1.precomputed());
    assertEquals(m1.toString(), m1.precomputed().toString());

    CharMatcher m2 = anyOf("Az");

    assertEquals("", is('a').retainFrom(""));
  }

  public void testPrecomputedOptimizations() {
    // These are testing behavior that's never promised by the API.
    // Some matchers are so efficient that it is a waste of effort to
    // build a precomputed version.
    CharMatcher m1 = is('x');
    assertSame(m1, m1.precomputed());
    assertEquals(m1.toString(), m1.precomputed().toString());

    CharMatcher m2 = anyOf("Az");

 * addressable domain on the web -- that is, for a candidate string {@code "xxx"}, might browsing to
 * {@code "http://xxx/"} result in a webpage being displayed? In the past, this test was frequently
 * done by determining whether the domain ended with a {@linkplain #isPublicSuffix() public suffix}
 * but was not itself a public suffix. However, this test is no longer accurate. There are many

   * uniform, the actual concurrency observed may vary. Ideally, you should choose a value to
   * accommodate as many threads as will ever concurrently modify the table. Using a significantly
   * higher value than you need can waste space and time, and a significantly lower value can lead
   * to thread contention. But overestimates and underestimates within an order of magnitude do not

   * 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

      return false;
    }

    if (!finalizeReference(firstReference, finalizeReferentMethod)) {
      return false;
    }

    /*
     * Loop as long as we have references available so as not to waste CPU looking up the Method
     * over and over again.
     */
    while (true) {
      Reference<?> furtherReference = queue.poll();
      if (furtherReference == null) {
        return true;
      }

            + "]"
            + "0189["
            + Character.MAX_CODE_POINT
            + "]";
    assertEquals(expected, escapeAsString(e, TEST_STRING));
  }

  public void testGrowBuffer() { // need to grow past an initial 1024 byte buffer
    StringBuilder input = new StringBuilder();
    StringBuilder expected = new StringBuilder();
    for (int i = 256; i < 1024; i++) {
      input.append((char) i);

      if (newCount > array.length) {
        array = Arrays.copyOf(array, expandedCapacity(array.length, newCount));
      }
    }

    // Unfortunately this is pasted from ImmutableCollection.Builder.
    private static int expandedCapacity(int oldCapacity, int minCapacity) {
      if (minCapacity < 0) {
        throw new AssertionError("cannot store more than MAX_VALUE elements");
      }