fail();
    } catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException expected) {
    }
  }

  /*
   * Whenever an implementation uses `instanceof` on a parameter instance, the test has to know that
   * (so much for "black box") and try instances that both do and don't pass the check. The "don't"
   * half of that is more awkward to arrange...
   */
  private static <T> Iterable<T> iterable(final Collection<T> collection) {

   *
   * <p><i>Performance notes:</i> while the cartesian product of lists of size {@code m, n, p} is a
   * list of size {@code m x n x p}, its actual memory consumption is much smaller. When the
   * cartesian product is constructed, the input lists are merely copied. Only as the resulting list
   * is iterated are the individual lists created, and these are not retained after iteration.
   *

    return -1;
  }

  /**
   * Returns the start position of the first occurrence of the specified {@code target} within
   * {@code array}, or {@code -1} if there is no such occurrence.
   *
   * <p>More formally, returns the lowest index {@code i} such that {@code Arrays.copyOfRange(array,
   * i, i + target.length)} contains exactly the same elements as {@code target}.
   *

      fail();
    } catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException expected) {
    }
  }

  /*
   * Whenever an implementation uses `instanceof` on a parameter instance, the test has to know that
   * (so much for "black box") and try instances that both do and don't pass the check. The "don't"
   * half of that is more awkward to arrange...
   */
  private static <T> Iterable<T> iterable(final Collection<T> collection) {

 *     while (value != null) {
 *       wait();
 *     }
 *     value = newValue;
 *     notifyAll();
 *   }
 * }
 * }</pre>
 *
 * <h3>{@code ReentrantLock}</h3>
 *
 * <p>This version is much more verbose than the {@code synchronized} version, and still suffers
 * from the need for the programmer to remember to use {@code while} instead of {@code if}. However,

   * we've chosen to instead use a signature that benefits existing users -- and is still safe.
   *
   * For convertAll, I haven't looked as closely at *how* much existing users benefit, so we should
   * keep an eye out for problems that new users encounter. Note also that convertAll could support
   * both use cases by using @PolyNull. (By contrast, we can't use @PolyNull for our superinterface

  /**
   * This strategy uses all 128 bits of {@link Hashing#murmur3_128} when hashing. It looks different
   * from the implementation in MURMUR128_MITZ_32 because we're avoiding the multiplication in the
   * loop and doing a (much simpler) += hash2. We're also changing the index to a positive number by
   * AND'ing with Long.MAX_VALUE instead of flipping the bits.
   */
  MURMUR128_MITZ_64() {
    @Override

 * them, even though they usually won't be needed. If you have such arguments, use the conventional
 * if/throw idiom instead.
 *
 * <p>Depending on your message arguments, memory may be allocated for boxing and varargs array
 * creation. However, the methods of this class have a large number of overloads that prevent such
 * allocations in many common cases.
 *

   * equivalent (except in the case of overflow) to the call {@code
   * addAll(Collections.nCopies(element, occurrences))}, which would presumably perform much more
   * poorly.
   *
   * @param element the element to add occurrences of; may be null only if explicitly allowed by the
   *     implementation

   * to reduce cache contention on most processors. Padding is
   * overkill for most Atomics because they are usually irregularly
   * scattered in memory and thus don't interfere much with each
   * other. But Atomic objects residing in arrays will tend to be
   * placed adjacent to each other, and so will most often share
   * cache lines (with a huge negative performance impact) without
   * this precaution.