I am working on implementing a quicksort function to sort singly linked lists. What algorithm would I have to use to accomplish this ? For a linked list it would take worst case O(N) for each comparison, instead of the usual O(1) for arrays. So what would the worst case complexity be ?
To sum up, what modifications do I need to make to the quicksort algorithm to have an optimal sorting algorithm and what would be the worst case complexity of the algorithm ?
Thanks!
I have an implementation below:
public static SingleLinkedList quickSort(SingleLinkedList list, SLNode first, SLNode last)
{
if (first != null && last != null)
{
SLNode p = partition(list, first, last) ;
quickSort(list,first,p) ;
quickSort(list,p.succ, last) ;
}
return list ;
}
public static SLLNode partition(SinlgleLinkedList list, SLNode first, SLNode last)
{
SLNode p = first ;
SLNode ptr = p.succ ;
while (ptr!=null)
{
if (ptr.data.compareToIgnoreCase(p.data)<0)
{
String pivot = p.data ;
p.data = ptr.data ;
ptr.data = p.succ.data ;
p.succ.data = pivot ;
p = p.succ ;
}
ptr = ptr.succ ;
}
return p ;
}
Mergesort is more natural to implement for linked lists, but you can do quicksort very nicely. Below is one in C I've used in several applications.
It's a common myth that you can't do Quicksort efficiently with lists. This just isn't true, although careful implementation is required.
To answer your question, the Quicksort algorithm for lists is essentially the same as for arrays. Pick a pivot (the code below uses the head of the list), partition into two lists about the pivot, then recursively sort those lists and append the results with pivot in the middle. What is a bit non-obvious is that the append operation can be done with no extra pass over the list if you add a parameter for a list to be appended as-is at the tail of the sorted result. In the base case, appending this list requires no work.
It turns out that if comparisons are cheap, mergesort tends to run a little faster because quicksort spends more time fiddling with pointers. However if comparisons are expensive, then quicksort often runs faster because it needs fewer of them.
If NODE *list is the head of the initial list, then you can sort it with
qs(list, NULL, &list);
Here is the sort code. Note a chunk of it is an optimization for already-sorted lists. This optimization can be deleted if these cases are infrequent.
void qs(NODE * hd, NODE * tl, NODE ** rtn)
{
int nlo, nhi;
NODE *lo, *hi, *q, *p;
/* Invariant: Return head sorted with `tl' appended. */
while (hd != NULL) {
nlo = nhi = 0;
lo = hi = NULL;
q = hd;
p = hd->next;
/* Start optimization for O(n) behavior on sorted and reverse-of-sorted lists */
while (p != NULL && LEQ(p, hd)) {
hd->next = hi;
hi = hd;
++nhi;
hd = p;
p = p->next;
}
/* If entire list was ascending, we're done. */
if (p == NULL) {
*rtn = hd;
hd->next = hi;
q->next = tl;
return;
}
/* End optimization. Can be deleted if desired. */
/* Partition and count sizes. */
while (p != NULL) {
q = p->next;
if (LEQ(p, hd)) {
p->next = lo;
lo = p;
++nlo;
} else {
p->next = hi;
hi = p;
++nhi;
}
p = q;
}
/* Recur to establish invariant for sublists of hd,
choosing shortest list first to limit stack. */
if (nlo < nhi) {
qs(lo, hd, rtn);
rtn = &hd->next;
hd = hi; /* Eliminated tail-recursive call. */
} else {
qs(hi, tl, &hd->next);
tl = hd;
hd = lo; /* Eliminated tail-recursive call. */
}
}
/* Base case of recurrence. Invariant is easy here. */
*rtn = tl;
}
Here is a java implementation. It uses the head as the pivot. This can further be improved by avoiding the scanning of the left sublist before appending the right sublist, but it works. This is O(nLogn) too.
public class QuickSortLinkedList {
public ListNode sortList(ListNode head) {
//Base Case
if(head == null || head.next == null)
return head;
//Partition Strategy
//Chose first element as pivot and move all elements smaller than the pivot at the end of LL
//So the order will be pivot, elements smaller than or equal to pivot, elements larger than pivot
//Example: 9,13,10,6,9,8,11 => 9,13,10,9,11,6,8 and the method will return a pointer to 11
ListNode partitionedElement = partition(head);
//The elements to the right of pivot were all smaller than pivot after partioned
//Example: LeftPartition = 6->8->null
ListNode leftPartition = partitionedElement.next;
//The elements to the left of pivot were all large , so they go in right partition
//Example: rightPartition = 9->13->10->9->11->null
ListNode rightPartition = head;
partitionedElement.next = null;
//But there can be edge cases
//Example: 3,5,3,4,5-null => after partition , list is unchanged and last element 5 is returned
//in this case leftPartition: 3->null and rightPartition 5,3,4,5-null
if(leftPartition == null){
leftPartition = head;
rightPartition = head.next;
head.next =null;
}
//Now Recursively sort
rightPartition = sortList(rightPartition);
leftPartition = sortList(leftPartition);
//After sorting append rightPartition to leftPartition
ListNode iterator = leftPartition;
while(iterator.next!=null)
iterator = iterator.next;
iterator.next = rightPartition;
return leftPartition;
}
private ListNode partition(ListNode head){
//Base case
if(head.next.next == null){
if(head.next.val>head.val)
return head.next;
else
return head;
}
else{
ListNode i = head.next;
ListNode pivot = head;
ListNode lastElementSwapped = (pivot.next.val>=pivot.val)?pivot.next:pivot;
while(i!=null && i.next !=null){
if(i.next.val >= pivot.val){
if(i.next == lastElementSwapped.next){
lastElementSwapped = lastElementSwapped.next;
}
else{
ListNode temp = lastElementSwapped.next;
lastElementSwapped.next = i.next;
i.next = i.next.next;
lastElementSwapped = lastElementSwapped.next;
lastElementSwapped.next = temp;
}
}
i = i.next;
}
return lastElementSwapped;
}
}
}
You can use quicksort and not lose the O(n*log(n)) expected behaviour. The trick is simple — the nodes into the array, sort the array of nodes, relink them in the correct order.
You can use this algorithm:
Choose the head node as pivot node.
The left partition starts with the pivot node, which will remain its tail
The right partition starts empty
For each node: pre-pend it to either the left or right partition list, setting its next reference to the current head of that partition, and making it its new head.
Since the pivot element is the tail node of the left partition, set its next reference to null, so to really terminate that list there.
Apply recursion on the left and right partition, returning its potentially modified head references.
Tie the two sorted sublists together. As the tail node of the left partition is guaranteed to remain there and was the pivot node, set its next reference to the head of the second, sorted partition.
Return the head of the sorted list.
Recursion stops when the base is encountered, which is when the list has fewer than 2 nodes.
This has an average time complexity of O(nlogn). The worst time complexity is O(n²). For instance, when the list is already sorted it will suffer this time complexity.
Here is a singly linked list implementation in Python with a quick_sort method:
class Node:
def __init__(self, data, nxt=None):
self.data = data
self.next = nxt
def __iter__(self):
curr = self
while curr:
node = curr
curr = curr.next
yield node
def values(self):
return (node.data for node in self)
def partition(self):
nodes = iter(self) # All nodes headed by this node
next(nodes) # Skip self
left = self # Left partition always has pivot node as its tail
pivotvalue = self.data
right = None
for curr in nodes: # Remaining nodes
# Prefix the current node to the relevant partition
if curr.data < pivotvalue:
curr.next = left
left = curr
else:
curr.next = right
right = curr
self.next = None # Terminate the left partition
return left, right
def quick_sort(self):
if not self.next: # Base case: one node only
return self
left, right = self.partition()
# Left partition has at least one node (the pivot node, which remains its tail)
left = left.quick_sort()
# Right partition could be empty
if right:
right = right.quick_sort()
self.next = right # Chain the two sorted partitions
return left
def is_sorted(self):
values = self.values()
prev = next(values)
for data in values:
if data < prev:
return False
prev = data
return True
class LinkedList:
def __init__(self, *values):
self.head = None
self.prefix(*values)
def prefix(self, *values):
for data in reversed(values):
self.head = Node(data, self.head)
def values(self):
if self.head:
return self.head.values()
def quick_sort(self):
self.head = self.head and self.head.quick_sort()
def is_sorted(self):
return self.head is not None and self.head.is_sorted()
Here is some code to test this implementation repeatedly with shuffled lists of 20 values:
from random import shuffle
values = list(range(20))
for _ in range(100):
shuffle(values)
linkedlist = LinkedList(*values)
print("Shuffled:", *linkedlist.values())
linkedlist.quick_sort()
print("Sorted:", *linkedlist.values())
if not linkedlist.is_sorted(): # Test for failure
raise ValueError("not sorted!")
Related
Given a singly linked list where each element contains a number and a pointer to the head of the list. Sum the first and last data and remove these nodes. Then sum the first and last data of the resulting linked list and remove these two nodes.
Keep doing this till the list becomes empty.
we have to find the maximum sum obtained from the resulting sum in O(1) space complexity.
The list is a singly linked list with even nodes.
My Thoughts:
One approach is to move the pointer to the last element at each iteration, remove the nodes, and keep a maxSum variable. This probably won't be an efficient solution.
If I understood correctly, a node in this linked list has two pointers: a pointer to the next node and one to the first node in the list.
There are several ways to solve this. Here is one:
Walk through the list and change the head pointer in each node to reference the previous node: this will give you a doubly linked list. Retain a pointer to the last node.
Now you can do a traversal in tandem starting at both ends of the list and walking towards each other.
Deleting nodes during that traversal is not really required. You could even restore the list to what it was originally in the second step.
It is even possible to do this without this extra head pointer in each node. In that case reverse the second half of the list.
Here is an implementation of the first idea, in JavaScript:
class Node {
constructor(data, head) {
this.data = data;
this.head = head || this; // default is node itself
this.next = null;
}
}
function createList(...values) {
if (!values) return null;
let head = new Node(values.shift()); // First value
let tail = head;
for (let value of values) { // Remaining values
tail.next = new Node(value, head);
tail = tail.next;
}
return tail.head;
}
function maxPairSum(head) {
if (!head) return -Infinity;
// Make doubly linked list, (ab)using node's head member
let tail;
for (tail = head; tail.next; tail = tail.next) {
tail.next.head = tail; // Next gets reference to previous
}
// Tandem walk, towards center
let maxSum = -Infinity;
for (let curr = head; curr != tail && curr != tail.next; curr = curr.next) {
maxSum = Math.max(maxSum, curr.data + tail.data);
tail = tail.head; // Is actually a reference to previous
}
// Restore head references (optional)
for (let curr = head; curr; curr = curr.next) {
curr.head = head;
}
return maxSum;
}
// Example run
let head = createList(2, 5, 1, 5, 4, 6);
let maxSum = maxPairSum(head);
console.log(maxSum); // 9
... And if you want to really remove the list, just clear the head reference. In JavaScript the garbage collector will free the unreachable memory; in some other languages (like C) you'll need to explicitly free the memory occupied by each node, before clearing the reference to the head node.
private static int max = 0, count = 0;
private static LinkedList top;
static int maximumPagesRec(LinkedList tail) {
if(tail.next==null)
max = max<top.data + tail.data ?top.data + tail.data: max;
else if(tail == top && count++ !=0){
max = max<top.data ?tail.data: max;
}
else if(top.next == tail && count++!=1)
max = max<top.data + tail.data ?top.data + tail.data: max;
else {
maximumPagesRec(tail.next);
}
top = top.next;
return max;
}
static int maximumPages(LinkedList head)
{ top = head;
return maximumPagesRec(head);
}
how about pushing all linked list value element to a stack, take 1->2->3->4 for example, and the stack will be 1234.
after that, we sum one by one and delete each linked list, store maximum value we got.
I have a linked list which is cyclic and I want to find out the total number of elements in this list. How to achieve this?
One solution that I can think of is maintaining two pointers. First pointer (*start) will always point to the starting node, say Node A.
The other pointer (*current) will be initialized as: current = start->next.
Now, just iterate each node with current -> next until it points to start.
And keep incrementing a counter: numberOfNodes++;
The code will look like:
public int countNumberOfItems(Node* start){
Node* current = start -> next;
int numberOfNodes = 1; //Atleast the starting node is there.
while(current->next != start){
numberOfNodes++;
current = current->next;
}
return numberOfNodes;
}
Let's say the list has x nodes before the loop and y nodes in the loop. Run the Floyd cycle detection counting the number of slow steps, s. Once you detect a meet point, run around the loop once more to get y.
Now, starting from the list head, make s - y steps, getting to the node N. Finally, run two slow pointers from N and M until they meet, for t steps. Convince yourself (or better prove) that they meet where the initial part of the list enters the loop.
Therefore, the initial part has s - y + t + 1 nodes, and the loop is formed by y nodes, giving s + t + 1 total.
You just want to count the nodes in your linked list right? I've put an example below. But in your case there is a cycle so you also need to detect that in order not to count some of the nodes multiple times.
I've corrected my answer there is now an ordinary count and count in loop (with a fast and slow pointer).
static int count( Node n)
{
int res = 1;
Node temp = n;
while (temp.next != n)
{
res++;
temp = temp.next;
}
return res;
}
static int countInLoop( Node list)
{
Node s_pointer = list, f_pointer = list;
while (s_pointer !=null && f_pointer!=null && f_pointer.next!=null)
{
s_pointer = s_pointer.next;
f_pointer = f_pointer.next.next;
if (s_pointer == f_pointer)
return count(s_pointer);
}
return 0;
}
First find the cycle using Floyd Cycle Detection algorithm and also maintain count when you checking cycle once found loop then print count for the same.
function LinkedList() {
let length = 0;
let head = null;
let Node = function(element) {
this.element = element;
this.next = null;
}
this.head = function() {
return head;
};
this.add = function(element) {
let node = new Node(element);
if(head === null){
head = node;
} else {
let currentNode = head;
while(currentNode.next) {
currentNode = currentNode.next;
}
currentNode.next = node;
}
};
this.detectLoopWithCount = function() {
head.next.next.next.next.next.next.next.next = head; // make cycle
let fastPtr = head;
let slowPtr = head;
let count = 0;
while(slowPtr && fastPtr && fastPtr.next) {
count++;
slowPtr = slowPtr.next;
fastPtr = fastPtr.next.next;
if (slowPtr == fastPtr) {
console.log("\n Bingo :-) Cycle found ..!! \n ");
console.log('Total no. of elements = ', count);
return;
}
}
}
}
let mylist = new LinkedList();
mylist.add('list1');
mylist.add('list2');
mylist.add('list3');
mylist.add('list4');
mylist.add('list5');
mylist.add('list6');
mylist.add('list7');
mylist.add('list8');
mylist.detectLoopWithCount();
There is a "slow" pointer which moves one node at a time. There is a "fast" pointer which moves twice as fast, two nodes at a time.
A visualization as slow and fast pointers move through linked list with 10 nodes:
1: |sf--------|
2: |-s-f------|
3: |--s--f----|
4: |---s---f--|
5: |----s----f|
At this point one of two things are true: 1) the linked list does not loop (checked with fast != null && fast.next != null) or 2) it does loop. Let's continue visualization assuming it does loop:
6: |-f----s---|
7: |---f---s--|
8: |-----f--s-|
9: |-------f-s|
10: s == f
If the linked list is not looped, the fast pointer finishes the race at O(n/2) time; we can remove the constant and call it O(n). If the linked list does loop, the slow pointer moves through the whole linked list and eventually equals the faster pointer at O(n) time.
I am asked to implement an algorithm based upon the data structure of a linkedList in the form of pseudocode.
Unfortunately I have a Python/Java background and thus no experience with pointers.
Could someone explain me how I would iterate over a doublyLinkedList, change and compare values of elements.
From what I have understood so far, i would do something like this.: to have an iteration over each element.
for L.head to L.tail
But how would I then access the current object in the list analogous to A[i] for i to L.length?
As the order of a linkedList is determined by pointers rather than indices in a linkedList can I simply do things like currentObj.prev.key = someVal or currentObj.key < currentObj.prev.key or is there some other wokflow to work with individual elements?
Again, I am obviously stuck as I lack an basic understanding on how to deal with pointers.
Cheers,
Andrew
So basically the data structures are:
Node:
node {
node next;//"single link"
node prev;//for "doubly"...
}
and List:
list {
node head;//for singly linked, this'd be enough
node tail;//..for "doubly" you "point" also to "tail"
int/*long*/ size; //can be of practical use
}
The (common) operations of a list:
Creation/Initialization:
list:list() {
head = null;
tail = null;
size = 0;
}
Add a node at the first position:
void:addFirst(node) {
if(isEmpty()) {
head = node;
tail = node;
size = 1;
} else {
head.prev = node;
node.next = head;
head = node;
size++;
}
}
// ..."add last" is quite analogous...
"is empty", can be implemented in different ways..as long as you keep the invariant
bool:isEmpty() {
return size==0;
//or return head==null ... or tail==null
}
"add a node at position i":
void:add(i, node) {
assert(i>=0 && i <=size);//!
if(isEmpty() || i == 0) {
addFirst(node);
} else if (i == size) {
addLast(node);
} else {//here we could decide, whether i is closer to head or tail, but for simplicity, we iterate "from head to tail".
int j = 1;
node cur = head.next; //<- a "cursor" node, we insert "before" it ;)
while(j < i) {//1 .. i-1
cur = cur.next;// move the cursor
j++;//count
}
//j == i, cur.next is not null, curr.prev is not null, cur is the node at currently i/j position
node.prev = cur.prev;
cur.prev.next = node;
cur.prev = node;
node.next = cur;
}
//don't forget the size:
size++;
}
Delete(node) is easy!
"Delete at position", "find node", "get node by position", etc. should use a similar loop (as add(i, node))...to find the correct index or node.
The strength/advantage of a doubly (comparing to a singly) linked list, is that it can iterate as "forth" as "back". To use this advantage (it is only advantageous on index-based operations, for "find(node)" e.g. you still don't know where to start/iterate best), you determine whether pos is closer to head(0) or to tail(size-1), and start&route your iteration accordingly.
...What else operations are you intereseted in (detail)?
So I got this question from an exam.
How would you get the nth node from the tail in a singly linked list?
Each Node has a value and a next (which is a pointer to the next value). We are given this:
getNodeFromTail(Node head, int x) {
}
So the way I did it is to find the length of the list by traversing it once. Then going again to get the (length - x) node. So in total, 2 traversals.
getNodeFromTail(Node head, int x) {
int length = 0;
Node headdupe = head;
while (headdupe.next != NULL) {
headdupe = headdupe.next;
length++;
}
int a = length--;
for (int y = 0; y < a; y++) {
head = head.next;
}
return head;
}
This is right, but there is also a bonus question that is asking whether we can do the same thing, but only traversing it once. I couldn't think of it during the exam, but after I thought of one way, but I'm not too sure about it.
I could make an ArrayList of length x. Then every time I run the while-loop, I would add an element to the top of the array, cascade down and kick off the last element of the array. Then when the head hits null, return the node at the array[x-1].
Is this right? Is there a better solution?
Make 2 pointers to the first node
Advance one pointer by x
Advance both pointers side by side until the one further in the list hits the end.
Your pointer further back points to the xth last element.
I would do the following:
Keep a circular buffer of size x and add the nodes to it as you traverse the list. When you reach the end of the list, the x'th one from the tail is equal to the next entry in the circular buffer.
In pseudocode:
Node getNodeFromTail(Node head, int x) {
// Circular buffer with current index of of iteration.
int[] buffer = new int[x];
int i = 0;
do {
// Place the current head in its position in the buffer and increment
// the head and the index, continuing if necessary.
buffer[i++ % x] = head;
head = head.next;
} while (head.next != NULL);
// If we haven't reached x nodes, return NULL, otherwise the next item in the
// circular buffer holds the item from x heads ago.
return (i < x) ? NULL : buffer[++i % x];
}
This solution requires an additional x in memory and is a classic example of trading runtime time for memory.
Note: what to do if the input list is smaller than x is undefined.
Maintain 2 pointers,
Advance First pointer to Nth Node from start
Now Point Second Pointer to Head
Keep Advancing Both pointers now till first reaches end
Second pointer now points to Nth from last
Extra Care in case list has less than N elements
You can do it whithout traversing twice or recursion.
See the following:
int getNodeFromTail(Node head, int position)
{
if (head == NULL)
return 0;
// 2 pointers needed
Node first = head;
Node sec = head;
for(int i = 0; i < position; i++)
sec = sec.next;
while (sec.next != NULL)
{
sec = sec.next;
first = first.next;
}
return first;
}
You don't need 2 loops which is inefficient, just use 2 pointers and a counter:
Node getNodeFromTail(Node head, int x)
{
Node p = head;
Node q = head;
int diff = 0;
while (p.next != NULL)
{
p = p.next;
if (diff >= x)
q = q.next;
else
diff++;
}
return q;
}
This is the simplest solution
static int getNodeNoStack(ListNode head, int k) {
ListNode result = head;
int count = 0;
while(head.next != null) {
if(count < k) {
count++;
} else {
result = result.next;
}
head = head.next;
}
return result.val;
}
You just need to keep the pointer "result" at distance k from head traversing the entire list till the end. Once head is at the end then the result pointer will be at the kth position from tail
I wanted to sort a linked list containing 0s, 1s or 2s. Now, this is clearly a variant of the Dutch National Flag Problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_national_flag_problem
The algorithm for the same as given in the link is:
"Have the top group grow down from the top of the array, the bottom group grow up from the bottom, and keep the middle group just above the bottom. The algorithm stores the locations just below the top group, just above the bottom, and just above the middle in three indexes. At each step, examine the element just above the middle. If it belongs to the top group, swap it with the element just below the top. If it belongs in the bottom, swap it with the element just above the bottom. If it is in the middle, leave it. Update the appropriate index. Complexity is Θ(n) moves and examinations."
And a C++ implementation given for the same is:
void threeWayPartition(int data[], int size, int low, int high) {
int p = -1;
int q = size;
for (int i = 0; i < q;) {
if (data[i] == low) {
swap(data[i], data[++p]);
++i;
} else if (data[i] >= high) {
swap(data[i], data[--q]);
} else {
++i;
}
}
}
My only question is how do we traverse back in a linked list like we are doing here in an array?
A standard singly-linked list doesn't allow you to move backwards given a linked list cell. However, you could use a doubly-linked list, where each cell stores a next and a previous pointer. That would let you navigate the list forwards and backwards.
However, for the particular problem you're trying to solve, I don't think this is necessary. One major difference between algorithms on arrays and on linked lists is that when working with linked lists, you can rearrange the cells in the list to reorder the elements in the list. Consequently, the algorithm you've detailed above - which works by changing the contents of the array - might not actually be the most elegant algorithm on linked lists.
If you are indeed working with linked lists, one possible way to solve this problem would be the following:
Create lists holding all values that are 0, 1, or 2.
Remove all cells from the linked list and distribute them into the list of elements that are equal to 0, 1, or 2.
Concatenate these three lists together.
This does no memory allocation and purely works by rearranging the linked list cells. It still runs in time Θ(n), which is another plus. Additionally, you can do this without ever having to walk backwards (i.e. this works on a singly-linked list).
I'll leave the complete implementation to you, but as an example, here's simple C++ code to distribute the linked list cells into the zero, one, and two lists:
struct Cell {
int value;
Cell* next;
}
/* Pointers to the heads of the three lists. */
Cell* lists[3] = { NULL, NULL, NULL };
/* Distribute the cells across the lists. */
while (list != NULL) {
/* Cache a pointer to the next cell in the list, since we will be
* rewiring this linked list.
*/
Cell* next = list->next;
/* Prepend this cell to the list it belongs to. */
list->next = lists[list->value];
lists[list->value] = list;
/* Advance to the next cell in the list. */
list = next;
}
Hope this helps!
As others have said, there is no way to "back up" in a linked list without reverse links. Though it's not exactly an answer to your question, the sort can be easily accomplished with three queues implementing a bucket sort with three buckets.
The advantage of queues (vice pushing on stacks) is that the sort is stable. That is, if there are data in the list nodes (other than the 0,1,2-valued keys), these will remain in the same order for each key.
This is only one of many cases where the canonical algorithm for arrays is not the best for lists.
There is a very slick, simple way to implement the queues: circularly linked lists where the first node, say p, is the tail of the queue and consequently p->next is is the head. With this, the code is concise.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct node_s {
struct node_s *next;
int val;
int data;
} NODE;
// Add node to tail of queue q and return the new queue.
NODE *enqueue(NODE *q, NODE *node)
{
if (q) {
node->next = q->next;
q->next = node;
}
else node->next = node;
return node;
}
// Concatenate qa and qb and return the result.
NODE *cat(NODE *qa, NODE *qb)
{
NODE *head = qa->next;
qa->next = qb->next;
qb->next = head;
return qb;
}
// Sort a list where all values are 0, 1, or 2.
NODE *sort012(NODE *list)
{
NODE *next = NULL, *q[3] = { NULL, NULL, NULL};
for (NODE *p = list; p; p = next) {
next = p->next;
q[p->val] = enqueue(q[p->val], p);
}
NODE *result = cat(q[0], cat(q[1], q[2]));
// Now transform the circular queue to a simple linked list.
NODE *head = result->next;
result->next = NULL;
return head;
}
int main(void)
{
NODE *list = NULL;
int N = 100;
// Build a list of nodes for testing
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
NODE *p = malloc(sizeof(NODE));
p->val = rand() % 3;
p->data = N - i; // List ends up with data 1,2,3,..,N
p->next = list;
list = p;
}
list = sort012(list);
for (NODE *p = list; p; p = p->next)
printf("key val=%d, data=%d\n", p->val, p->data);
return 0;
}
This is now a complete simple test and it runs just fine.
This is untested. (I will try to test it if I get time.) But it ought to be at least very close to a solution.
Using a doubly linked list. If you have already implemented a linked list object and the related link list node object, and are able to traverse it in the forward direction it isn't a whole bunch more work to traverse in the reverse direction.
Assuming you have a Node object somewhat like:
public class Node
{
public Node Next;
public Object Value;
}
Then all you really need to do is change you Node class and you Insert method(s) up a little bit to keep track of of the Node that came previously:
public class Node
{
public Node Next;
public Node Previous;
public Object Value;
}
public void Insert(Node currentNode, Node insertedNode)
{
Node siblingNode = currentNode.Next;
insertedNode.Previous = currentNode;
insertedNode.Next = siblingNode;
if(siblingNode!= null)
siblingNode.previous = insertedNode;
currentNode.next = insertedNode;
}
PS Sorry, I didn't notice the edit that included the C++ stuff so it's more C#
Works for all cases by CHANGING NODES rather than NODE DATA.. Hoping its never too late!
METHOD(To throw some light on handling corner cases):
1. Keep three dummy nodes each for 0,1,2;
2. Iterate throught the list and add nodes to respective list.
3. Make the next of zero,one,two pointers as NULL.
4. Backup this last nodes of each list.
5. Now handle 8 different possible cases to join these list and Determine the HEAD.
zero one two
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
An implementation of this in C++.
Node* sortList(Node *head)
{
struct Node dummyzero,dummyone,dummytwo;
dummyzero.next = dummyone.next = dummytwo.next = NULL;
struct Node *zero =&dummyzero,*one = &dummyone,*two=&dummytwo;
Node *curr = head,*next=NULL;
while(curr)
{
next = curr->next;
if(curr->data==0)
{
zero->next = curr;
zero = zero->next;
}
else if(curr->data==1)
{
one->next = curr;
one = one->next;
}
else
{
two->next = curr;
two = two->next;
}
curr = next;
}
zero->next = one->next = two->next =NULL; //Since this dummynode, No segmentation fault here.
Node *zerolast = zero,*onelast = one,*twolast = two;
zero = dummyzero.next;
one = dummyone.next;
two = dummytwo.next;
if(zero==NULL)
{
if(one==NULL)
head = two;
else
{
head = one;
onelast->next = two;
}
}
else
{
head = zero;
if(one==NULL)
zerolast->next = two;
else
{
zerolast->next = one;
onelast->next = two;
}
}
return head;
}
The idea is to use dutch flag sorting algorithm, with a slight modification:
sort 0's and 1's as per dutch flag method,
But for 2's instead of adding them at the end of list, keep them in a separate linked list.
And finally append the 2's list to the sorted list of 0's and 1's.
Node * sort012_linked_list(Node * head) {
if (!head || !head->next)
return head;
Node * head_of_2s = NULL;
Node * prev = NULL;
Node * curr = head;
while (curr) {
if (curr->data == 0) {
if (prev == NULL || prev->data == 0) {
prev = curr;
curr = curr->next;
}
else {
prev->next = curr->next;
curr->next = head;
head = curr;
curr = prev->next;
}
}
else if (curr->data == 1) {
prev = curr;
curr = curr->next;
}
else { // curr->data == 2
if (prev == NULL) {
head = curr->next;
curr->next = head_of_2s;
head_of_2s = curr;
curr = head;
}
else {
prev->next = curr->next;
curr->next = head_of_2s;
head_of_2s = curr;
curr = prev->next;
}
}
}
if (prev)
prev->next = head_of_2s;
return head;
}