...in favor of just calling `setException` unconditionally.

I wrote in a code review:

> There's a decent argument that the work we do here and in MoreExecutors.rejectionPropagatingExecutor isn't really buying us much, since it's not clear where else a RejectedExecutionException would be coming from. And even if it is coming from somewhere else, the most plausible location of all the implausible locations is "somewhere after we already called set/setException/setFuture/cancel," in which case we could still call setException(), confident in the knowledge that it will be a no-op.
> 
> Or maybe I'm forgetting something important. Beats me :) But certainly it's hard (impossible?) to write a test that covers this case.
/*
 * Copyright (C) 2017 The Guava Authors
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */
package com.google.common.graph;
import static com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkArgument;
import static com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull;
import com.google.common.annotations.Beta;
import com.google.common.collect.AbstractIterator;
import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSet;
import java.util.ArrayDeque;
import java.util.Deque;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Set;
import org.checkerframework.checker.nullness.qual.Nullable;