Accidentally using different types for the lower and upper endpoint produces a `ClassCastException` when validating that the lower endpoint isn't above the upper endpoint. This is a little surprising.

For example, the following:

```java
Range<? extends Number> range = Range.closedOpen(0, 1.0);
```

results in

```
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.Double cannot be cast to java.lang.Integer
        at java.lang.Integer.compareTo(Integer.java:52)
        at com.google.common.collect.Range.compareOrThrow(Range.java:690)
        at com.google.common.collect.Cut.compareTo(Cut.java:77)
        at com.google.common.collect.Range.<init>(Range.java:349)
        at com.google.common.collect.Range.create(Range.java:155)
        at com.google.common.collect.Range.closedOpen(Range.java:189)
```

(In the actual code I'm looking at, the `range` variable is a function parameter that must accept numeric ranges of different types, so it's less weird than it looks here.)

Now, the range produced here _is_ completely invalid, and there's no way that the compiler can check this (because we can't express that the two bounds parameters must be the same concrete type, or at worst be mutually comparable).

However, it would be nice if `Range.compareOrThrow()` caught `ClassCastException` and returned a clearer message, or just chained the CCE onto the "Invalid range" `IllegalArgumentException` it can already throw.

I note that `Range.compareOrThrow()` has a "may throw CCE" comment, but the only place that this exception is mentioned otherwise is in the Javadoc for `Range.encloseAll()` and a comment in `Range.contains()`, both of which are talking about their function arguments.
*
   * <p>Being reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive, the {@code encloses} relation defines a
   * <i>partial order</i> over ranges. There exists a unique {@linkplain Range#all maximal} range
   * according to this relation, and also numerous {@linkplain #isEmpty minimal} ranges. Enclosure
   * also implies {@linkplain #isConnected connectedness}.
   */
  public boolean encloses(Range<C> other) {
    return lowerBound.compareTo(other.lowerBound) <= 0
        && upperBound.compareTo(other.upperBound) >= 0;
  }
  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if there exists a (possibly empty) range which is {@linkplain #encloses
   * enclosed} by both this range and {@code other}.
   *
   * <p>For example,
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>{@code [2, 4)} and {@code [5, 7)} are not connected
   *   <li>{@code [2, 4)} and {@code [3, 5)} are connected, because both enclose {@code [3, 4)}
   *   <li>{@code [2, 4)} and {@code [4, 6)} are connected, because both enclose the empty range
   *       {@code [4, 4)}
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>Note that this range and {@code other} have a well-defined {@linkplain #span union} and
   * {@linkplain #intersection intersection} (as a single, possibly-empty range) if and only if this
   * method returns {@code true}.
   *
   * <p>The connectedness relation is both reflexive and symmetric, but does not form an {@linkplain
   * Equivalence equivalence relation} as it is not transitive.
   *