}

  public void testExpectedFpp() {
    BloomFilter<Object> bf = BloomFilter.create(HashTestUtils.BAD_FUNNEL, 10, 0.03);
    double fpp = bf.expectedFpp();
    assertThat(fpp).isEqualTo(0.0);
    // usually completed in less than 200 iterations
    while (fpp != 1.0) {
      boolean changed = bf.put(new Object());
      double newFpp = bf.expectedFpp();
      // if changed, the new fpp is strictly higher, otherwise it is the same

	// limit (8KB), we stop growing the source string once the limit
	// is reached and keep reusing the same source string - that
	// should therefore be always resident in the L1 cache - until we
	// have completed the construction of the result.
	// This yields significant speedups (up to +100%) in cases where
	// the result length is large (roughly, over L2 cache size).
	const chunkLimit = 8 * 1024
	chunkMax := n

  }

  /**
   * Returns an ordering that compares objects according to the order in which they appear in the
   * given list. Only objects present in the list (according to {@link Object#equals}) may be
   * compared. This comparator imposes a "partial ordering" over the type {@code T}. Subsequent
   * changes to the {@code valuesInOrder} list will have no effect on the returned comparator. Null
   * values in the list are not supported.
   *

 *       same function with more clarity.
 * </ul>
 *
 * <h3>Warning about performance</h3>
 *
 * <p>Remember that parameter values for message construction must all be computed eagerly, and
 * autoboxing and varargs array creation may happen as well, even when the verification succeeds and
 * the message ends up unneeded. Performance-sensitive verification checks should continue to use
 * usual form:

    int approxSize = IntMath.divide(n * IntMath.log2(n, CEILING), Long.SIZE, CEILING);
    ArrayList<BigInteger> bignums = new ArrayList<>(approxSize);

    // Start from the pre-computed maximum long factorial.
    int startingNumber = LongMath.factorials.length;
    long product = LongMath.factorials[startingNumber - 1];
    // Strip off 2s from this value.

	}
	if err != nil && err != io.EOF {
		cr.err = err
		return n, cr.err
	}

	// Once we have read the entire chunk successfully, we verify
	// that the received signature matches our computed signature.
	cr.chunkSHA256Writer.Write(cr.buffer)
	newSignature := cr.getChunkSignature()
	if !compareSignatureV4(string(signature[16:]), newSignature) {
		cr.err = errSignatureMismatch
		return n, cr.err
	}

   * of {@link java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture#thenAccept} and {@link
   * java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture#thenAcceptAsync}.
   *
   * @param callback The callback to invoke when this {@code Future} is completed.
   * @param executor The executor to run {@code callback} when the future completes.
   */
  public final void addCallback(FutureCallback<? super V> callback, Executor executor) {

     * 2. 1.2-SNAPSHOT == 1.2-snapshot
     * </pre>
     *
     * @param args the version strings to parse and compare. You can pass arbitrary number of version strings and always
     *             two adjacent will be compared.
     */
    // CHECKSTYLE_ON: LineLength
    public static void main(String... args) {
        System.out.println("Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form and as a list of tokens) and"

*   When you contribute a new feature to TensorFlow, the maintenance burden is
    (by default) transferred to the TensorFlow team. This means that the benefit
    of the contribution must be compared against the cost of maintaining the
    feature.
*   Full new features (e.g., a new op implementing a cutting-edge algorithm)
    typically will live in

          .isEqualTo(MoreFiles.asByteSource(fooCopy).size());
      assertThat(MoreFiles.equal(fooPath, fooCopy)).isFalse();

      // should also assert that a Path that erroneously reports a size 0 can still be compared,
      // not sure how to do that with the Path API
    }
  }

  public void testEqual_links() throws IOException {
    try (FileSystem fs = Jimfs.newFileSystem(Configuration.unix())) {