* }
 * }
 *
 * @author Ben Yu
 * @since 12.0
 */
/*
 * A nullable bound would let users create a TypeParameter instance for a parameter with a nullable
 * bound. However, it would also let them create `new TypeParameter<@Nullable T>() {}`, which
 * wouldn't behave as users might expect. Additionally, it's not clear how the TypeToken API could

 * a little different from those of other Collection-related features such as {@link
 * CollectionFeature} or {@link SetFeature}.
 *
 * <p>However, when {@link CollectionSize.Require} is used to annotate a test it behaves normally
 * (i.e. it requires the collection instance under test to be a certain size for the test to run).

 * a little different from those of other Collection-related features such as {@link
 * CollectionFeature} or {@link SetFeature}.
 *
 * <p>However, when {@link CollectionSize.Require} is used to annotate a test it behaves normally
 * (i.e. it requires the collection instance under test to be a certain size for the test to run).

   * add the suppression to the whole method (which turns off checking for a large section of code),
   * or extract a variable, and put the suppression on that. However, a local variable typically
   * doesn't work: Because nullness analyses typically infer the nullness of local variables,
   * there's no way to assign a {@code @Nullable T} to a field {@code T foo;} and instruct the

   * add the suppression to the whole method (which turns off checking for a large section of code),
   * or extract a variable, and put the suppression on that. However, a local variable typically
   * doesn't work: Because nullness analyses typically infer the nullness of local variables,
   * there's no way to assign a {@code @Nullable T} to a field {@code T foo;} and instruct the

     * fastest possible implementation, which delegates to the array overload of String.join.
     *
     * In theory, we can quickly determine the size of any Collection. However, thanks to
     * regrettable implementations like our own Sets.filter, Collection.size() is sometimes a
     * linear-time operation, and it can even have side effects. Thus, we limit the special case to

   * the Android flavor of Guava). The field is declared with a type of {@code Object} to avoid
   * compatibility problems on Android VMs. The corresponding accessor method, however, can have the
   * more specific return type as long as users are careful to guard calls to it with version checks
   * or reflection: Android VMs ignore the types of elements that aren't used.
   */

   * calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

      if (currentSubscribers == null || !currentSubscribers.removeAll(listenerMethodsForType)) {
        // if removeAll returns true, all we really know is that at least one subscriber was
        // removed... however, barring something very strange we can assume that if at least one
        // subscriber was removed, all subscribers on listener for that event type were... after

   * add the suppression to the whole method (which turns off checking for a large section of code),
   * or extract a variable, and put the suppression on that. However, a local variable typically
   * doesn't work: Because nullness analyses typically infer the nullness of local variables,
   * there's no way to assign a {@code @Nullable T} to a field {@code T foo;} and instruct the