UnsignedShort patch as pull request

[jschneider]

Maybe this is easier to get worked on?
applied patch from https://codereview.appspot.com/5271042/

Beware: It seems that there have been some refactorings to UnsignedInteger/UnsignedInts that are probably not reflected within the UnsignedShort(s) classes.

[googlebot]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project, in which case you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

[jschneider]

I signed it!

[googlebot]

CLAs look good, thanks!

[lowasser]

Can you give us more details about what specific UnsignedShorts methods you would personally need?

Note that Java 8 added some unsigned type support, so I'm not sure we want to further expand Guava in this area.

[travisdowns]

FWIW this would be very useful. Java 8 offers limited support for unsigned types, and in particular it does not offer UnsignedShorts.checkedCast() (it only offers widening conversions). That happens to be my use case.

[cowwoc]

@lowasser Any outstanding issues preventing this addition?

[czee]

@lowasser Could this be merged?

[jschneider]

This is a very, very old merge request. I don't see any chance this will be merged anytime, to be honest :-(

[cowwoc]

@jschneider What's the hold up? Lack of demand? Something else?

[jschneider]

@cowwoc I have absolutely no idea. But the pull request has been created in 2015, so....

[czee]

I see that the branch is able to be merged and the tests are all included. Let's try to get attention to it and get it merged anyway? It's a good patch for those of us writing clients that interact with binary data protocols. For brevity it doesn't make sense to leave short types excluded.

[rastov]

@cpovirk any reason for not merging this PR?