* <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

    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

   * 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}.
   */

 *   <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

   * 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);}.
   *

   *
   * <p>Historically, {@code Supplier} instances in this library have implemented this method to
   * recognize certain cases where distinct {@code Supplier} instances would in fact behave
   * identically. However, as code migrates to {@code java.util.function}, that behavior will
   * disappear. It is best not to depend on it.
   */
  @Override
  boolean equals(@Nullable Object object);

   *
   * <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

behind them a railway station.)  However, she soon made out that
she was in the pool of tears which she had wept when she was nine
feet high.

  `I wish I hadn't cried so much!' said Alice, as she swam about,
trying to find her way out.  `I shall be punished for it now, I
suppose, by being drowned in my own tears!  That WILL be a queer
thing, to be sure!  However, everything is queer to-day.'

 * }
 * }
 *
 * @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