*
     * <p>Since the last element of the array is actually in the middle of the sorted structure, a
     * childless aunt node could be smaller, which would corrupt the invariant if this element
     * becomes the new parent of the aunt node. In that case, we first switch the last element with
     * its aunt node, before returning.
     */
    int swapWithConceptuallyLastElement(E actualLastElement) {

   *     HashFunction#hashString} method if the string contains non-BMP characters. Use {@link
   *     #murmur3_32_fixed(int)} instead.
   */
  @Deprecated
  @SuppressWarnings("IdentifierName") // the best we could do for adjacent digit blocks
  public static HashFunction murmur3_32(int seed) {
    return new Murmur3_32HashFunction(seed, /* supplementaryPlaneFix= */ false);
  }

  /**

          // caught and forwarded to the service the task would stop executing but the service would
          // have no idea.
          // TODO(lukes): consider building everything in terms of ListenableScheduledFuture then
          // the AbstractService could monitor the future directly. Rescheduling is still hard...
          // but it would help with some of these lock ordering issues.
          scheduleFailure = e;

/// note | Technical Details

You could also use `from starlette.middleware.cors import CORSMiddleware`.

     *  The implementation of this is a little slow, since it creates
     *  a number of objects each time it is called.  This could be optimized
     *  to keep the same objects around, but then thread-safety issues would arise.
     *
     *  @param contextNode The node to start searching from.
     *  @param expression A valid XPath string.

An additional header `X-Minio-Replication-Delete-Status` is returned which would show `PENDING` or `FAILED` status if the replication is still not caught up.

      // It is possible due to races that we are currently in the expected state even though we
      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

      }
      // We could delegate to super now but it would still box too much
      if (!(object instanceof List)) {
        return false;
      }
      List<?> that = (List<?>) object;
      if (this.size() != that.size()) {
        return false;
      }
      int i = parent.start;
      // Since `that` is very likely RandomAccess we could avoid allocating this iterator...

      }
      // We could delegate to super now but it would still box too much
      if (!(object instanceof List)) {
        return false;
      }
      List<?> that = (List<?>) object;
      if (this.size() != that.size()) {
        return false;
      }
      int i = parent.start;
      // Since `that` is very likely RandomAccess we could avoid allocating this iterator...

            //
            // If we were to cancel taskFuture, that would let the next task start while the old
            // one is still running.
            //
            // Now, maybe we could tweak our implementation to not start the next task until the
            // callable actually completes. (We could detect completion in our wrapper
            // `AsyncCallable task`.) However, our contract also promises: