*       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually
   *       without trouble. In this case, my guess is that our chosen approach is even less likely
   *       to lead to trouble than an incompatible change would be.
   *   <li>We could make {@link #countMap} no longer be {@code final}. Then we could write to it

e.item},y=function(e){return null!=e&&e===e.window},C=ie.document,u={type:!0,src:!0,nonce:!0,noModule:!0};function m(e,t,n){var r,i,o=(n=n||C).createElement("script");if(o.text=e,t)for(r in u)(i=t[r]||t.getAttribute&&t.getAttribute(r))&&o.setAttribute(r,i);n.head.appendChild(o).parentNode.removeChild(o)}function x(e){return null==e?e+"":"object"==typeof e||"function"==typeof e?n[i.call(e)]||"object":typeof e}var t="3.7.1",l=/HTML$/i,ce=function(e,t){return new ce.fn.init(e,t)};function c(e){var t=!!e&&"length"in...

                        mapEntry("c", (Collection<String>) ImmutableSortedSet.of("carl", "carol")),
                        mapEntry("d", (Collection<String>) ImmutableSortedSet.of("david", "dead")),
                        mapEntry(
                            "e", (Collection<String>) ImmutableSortedSet.of("eric", "elaine")));
                  }

                  @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")

                .named("ImmutableIntArray.asList"),
            ListTestSuiteBuilder.using(new ImmutableIntArrayHeadSubListAsListGenerator())
                .named("ImmutableIntArray.asList, head subList"),
            ListTestSuiteBuilder.using(new ImmutableIntArrayTailSubListAsListGenerator())
                .named("ImmutableIntArray.asList, tail subList"),

   * this saves both time and space versus traversing the same graph using {@code forGraph()}.
   *
   * <p>Providing a graph to be traversed for which there is more than one path from the start
   * node(s) to any node may lead to:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>Traversal not terminating (if the graph has cycles)
   *   <li>Nodes being visited multiple times (if multiple paths exist from any start node to any

   *       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually
   *       without trouble. In this case, my guess is that our chosen approach is even less likely
   *       to lead to trouble than an incompatible change would be.
   *   <li>We could make {@link #countMap} no longer be {@code final}. Then we could write to it

				// The length of the expected ListObjectsResult.Objects
				// should match in both expected result from test cases
				// and in the output. On failure calling t.Fatalf,
				// otherwise it may lead to index out of range error in
				// assertion following this.
				if !testCase.versioned {
					if len(testCase.resultL.Objects) != len(resultL.Objects) {
						t.Logf("want: %v", objInfoNames(testCase.resultL.Objects))

                .named("ImmutableDoubleArray.asList"),
            ListTestSuiteBuilder.using(new ImmutableDoubleArrayHeadSubListAsListGenerator())
                .named("ImmutableDoubleArray.asList, head subList"),
            ListTestSuiteBuilder.using(new ImmutableDoubleArrayTailSubListAsListGenerator())
                .named("ImmutableDoubleArray.asList, tail subList"),

            .createTestSuite());
    suite.addTest(
        ListTestSuiteBuilder.using(new ImmutableListHeadSubListGenerator())
            .named("ImmutableList, head subList")
            .withFeatures(CollectionSize.ANY, SERIALIZABLE, ALLOWS_NULL_QUERIES)
            .createTestSuite());
    suite.addTest(
        ListTestSuiteBuilder.using(new ImmutableListTailSubListGenerator())

        // The BigInteger implementation is tested separately, use it as the reference.
        // Promote the int value (rather than using intValue() on the expected value) to avoid
        // any risk of truncation which could lead to a false positive.
        assertEquals(BigIntegerMath.sqrt(valueOf(x), mode), valueOf(IntMath.sqrt(x, mode)));
      }
    }
  }

  /* Relies on the correctness of sqrt(int, FLOOR). */