* }
 * }
 *
 * @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

   * 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);}.
   *

   * 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);}.
   *

   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.
   */

   * 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);}.
   *

   * 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);}.
   *

   */
  public PatternFilenameFilter(Pattern pattern) {
    this.pattern = Preconditions.checkNotNull(pattern);
  }

  /*
   * Our implementation works fine with a null `dir`. However, there's nothing in the documentation
   * of the supertype that suggests that implementations are expected to tolerate null. That said, I
   * see calls in Google code that pass a null `dir` to a FilenameFilter.... So let's declare the

   *
   * <p>When passed a key that is present in the map, {@code asMap().get(Object)} has the same
   * behavior as {@link #get}, returning a live collection. When passed a key that is not present,
   * however, {@code asMap().get(Object)} returns {@code null} instead of an empty collection.
   *
   * <p>Though the method signature doesn't say so explicitly, the returned map has {@link
   * SortedSet} values.
   */
  @Override

PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS
SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST
PROFITS), 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 OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE

   * the backport does. For now, we're keeping the class declaration in *both* flavors so that both
   * flavors can read old data or data from the other flavor. However, we strongly discourage
   * relying on this, as we have made incompatible changes to serialized forms in the past and
   * expect to do so again, as discussed in https://github.com/google/guava#important-warnings.
   */