newTop.totalCount = totalCount - oldElemCount;
        return newTop.rebalance();
      }
    }

    // Removes the minimum node from this subtree to be reused elsewhere
    @CheckForNull
    private AvlNode<E> removeMin(AvlNode<E> node) {
      if (left == null) {
        return right;
      } else {
        left = left.removeMin(node);
        distinctElements--;

        newTop.totalCount = totalCount - oldElemCount;
        return newTop.rebalance();
      }
    }

    // Removes the minimum node from this subtree to be reused elsewhere
    @CheckForNull
    private AvlNode<E> removeMin(AvlNode<E> node) {
      if (left == null) {
        return right;
      } else {
        left = left.removeMin(node);
        distinctElements--;

        VersionRange mergedRange = range1.restrict(range2);
        // TODO current policy is to retain the original version - is this correct, do we need strategies or is that
        // handled elsewhere?
        //        assertEquals( "1.1", mergedRange.getRecommendedVersion().toString(), CHECK_VERSION_RECOMMENDATION );
        assertEquals("1.0", mergedRange.getRecommendedVersion().toString(), CHECK_VERSION_RECOMMENDATION);

    }

    @Override
    public OneSizeTestContainerGenerator<Map<K, V>, Entry<K, V>> getInnerGenerator() {
      return mapGenerator;
    }
  }

  // TODO(cpovirk): could something like this be used elsewhere, e.g., ReserializedListGenerator?
  static class ForwardingTestMapGenerator<K extends @Nullable Object, V extends @Nullable Object>
      implements TestMapGenerator<K, V> {
    TestMapGenerator<K, V> delegate;

    try {
      if (future.isCancelled()) {
        // Clear futures prior to cancelling children. This sets our own state but lets
        // the input futures keep running, as some of them may be used elsewhere.
        futures = null;
        cancel(false);
      } else {
        collectValueFromNonCancelledFuture(index, future);
      }
    } finally {
      /*

   * checkers from issuing errors related to LegacyConverter, since it turns out that
   * LegacyConverter does violate the assumptions we make elsewhere.
   */

  @CheckForNull
  private B unsafeDoForward(@CheckForNull A a) {
    return doForward(uncheckedCastNullableTToT(a));
  }

  @CheckForNull
  private A unsafeDoBackward(@CheckForNull B b) {

	}

	if globalDNSConfig != nil {
		sr, err := globalDNSConfig.Get(bucket)
		if err != nil {
			// ErrNotImplemented indicates a DNS backend that doesn't need to check if bucket already
			// exists elsewhere
			if err == dns.ErrNoEntriesFound || err == dns.ErrNotImplemented {
				// Proceed to creating a bucket.
				if err = objectAPI.MakeBucket(ctx, bucket, opts); err != nil {

The document is not comprehensive.
</p>

<p>
The assembler is based on the input style of the Plan 9 assemblers, which is documented in detail
<a href="https://9p.io/sys/doc/asm.html">elsewhere</a>.
If you plan to write assembly language, you should read that document although much of it is Plan 9-specific.
The current document provides a summary of the syntax and the differences with

// When a policyName is given to this function, the policy association is
// created and stored in the IAM store. Thus, it should NOT be given for the
// role-arn case (because the role-to-policy mapping is separately stored
// elsewhere), the AssumeRole case (because the parent user is real and their
// policy is associated via policy-set API) and the AssumeRoleWithLDAP case
// (because the policy association is made via policy-set API).

</p>

<p>
The form <code>a … b</code> represents the set of characters from
<code>a</code> through <code>b</code> as alternatives. The horizontal
ellipsis <code>…</code> is also used elsewhere in the spec to informally denote various
enumerations or code snippets that are not further specified. The character <code>…</code>
(as opposed to the three characters <code>...</code>) is not a token of the Go
language.
</p>