INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

        // For 100% coverage, we'd need to ensure the superclass constructor is indeed called with these values.
        // However, given the current structure, testing the fields set by MsrpcEnumerateAliasesInDomain itself is the primary focus.
    }

 *   <li>hasNext()
 *   <li>hasNext();
 *   <li>remove();
 *   <li>next();
 * </ol>
 *
 * <p>This particular order of operations may be unrealistic, and testing all 3^5 of them may be
 * thought of as overkill; however, it's difficult to determine which proper subset of this massive
 * set would be sufficient to expose any possible bug. Brute force is simpler.
 *
 * <p>To use this class the concrete subclass must implement the {@link

    for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    GWT happens to use the prod .gwt.xml, so it looks for no supersource for

 * that it is not "API-frozen."
 *
 * <p>It is generally safe for <i>applications</i> to depend on beta APIs, at the cost of some extra
 * work during upgrades. However it is generally inadvisable for <i>libraries</i> (which get
 * included on users' CLASSPATHs, outside the library developers' control) to do so.
 *
 * @author Kevin Bourrillion
 */
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.CLASS)

 * that it is not "API-frozen."
 *
 * <p>It is generally safe for <i>applications</i> to depend on beta APIs, at the cost of some extra
 * work during upgrades. However it is generally inadvisable for <i>libraries</i> (which get
 * included on users' CLASSPATHs, outside the library developers' control) to do so.
 *
 * @author Kevin Bourrillion
 */
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.CLASS)

    for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    GWT happens to use the prod .gwt.xml, so it looks for no supersource for

    for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    GWT happens to use the prod .gwt.xml, so it looks for no supersource for

   * <p>This is guaranteed to return zero if the dataset contains only exactly one finite value. It
   * is not guaranteed to return zero when the dataset consists of the same value multiple times,
   * due to numerical errors. However, it is guaranteed never to return a negative result.
   *
   * <h3>Non-finite values</h3>
   *
   * <p>If the dataset contains any non-finite values ({@link Double#POSITIVE_INFINITY}, {@link

       *
       * My impression is that an AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater in a static field is similarly fast to
       * Unsafe on modern JVMs (if perhaps not quite as fast as VarHandle?). However, I'm not sure
       * exactly what we've benchmarked, and we certainly haven't benchmarked as far back as JDK 8.
       * (We also haven't benchmarked under Android. We continue to use UnsafeAtomicHelper there so