I'm writing an iterative function to search a binary tree for a certain value. This is localized to signed ints until I get into how to genericize classes.
Assume that my class is BinarySearchTree, and it has a pointer to the root node of the tree. Also assume that nodes are inserted through an insert function, and have pointers to two children. Here is a much abbreviated version of the Node struct:
struct Node
{
public:
Node *left_, *right_;
int value_
Node(int val) : value_(val), left_(0), right_(0) { }
//done in this manner to always make sure blank children are
//init to zero, or null
Node(int val, Node *left, Node *right) : value_(val), left_(0), right_(0)
{ left_ = left; right_ = right; }
}
So, you can safely assume that a node's uninit pointers will be NULL.
Here is my code:
int BinarySearchTree::search(int val)
{
Node* next = this->root();
while (next->left() != 0 || next->right () != 0)
{
if (val == next->value())
{
return next->value();
}
else if (val < next->value())
{
next = next->left();
}
else if (val > next->value())
{
next = next->right();
}
}
//not found
return 0;
}
This code is being rejected by a friend for two reasons:
1) If next has no children, both will evaluate to zero and I will prematurely exit the loop (I will never check the searched val against next's value).
2) If next has one child, but the data you are searching for should be on the empty side of the tree, next will be set to 0, and it will loop again, comparing next (which is 0) to the left and right trees like while(0->left()), resulting in undefined behavior.
I am told that the solution to both problems lies in the loop condition, but I can't see what I can do to easily remedy the situation. Can the community of Stack Overflow offer any insights?
I think you should be testing if next is not NULL in your loop like so:
int BinarySearchTree::search(int val)
{
Node* next = this->root();
while (next)
{
if (val == next->value())
{
return next->value();
}
else if (val < next->value())
{
next = next->left();
}
else if (val > next->value())
{
next = next->right();
}
}
//not found
return 0;
}
Try this:
while (next != NULL) ?
First of all, I'm not sure why you are returning an int. What if you are searching for 0 in the tree. You probably want something like this:
bool BinarySearchTree::Search(int val) {
Node* current = root();
while (current != NULL) {
// Check if it's here
if (val == current->value()) {
return true;
}
if (val < current->value()) {
current = current->left();
} else {
current = current->right();
}
}
// Not found
return false;
}
Notice that the loop invariant: at the beginning of each loop, you are at a non null node that you need to "process". First check if it's the node you want. If not, make a branch, and let the loop decide if the branch was "good" (ie - non null). Then you'll let the next loop iteration take care of testing.
Related
Here is the code for finding if the given binary tree was a binary search tree(BST) or not:
bool isBST(struct node* root)
{
// traverse the tree in inorder fashion and keep track of prev node
if (root)
{
struct node *prev = NULL;
if (!isBST(root->left))
return false;
// Allows only distinct valued nodes
if (prev != NULL && root->data <= prev->data)
return false;
prev = root;
return isBST(root->right);
}
return true;
}
However this does not give the correct output.
when I changed my code to the below version it worked fine:
bool isbst(node * root)
{
static struct node * prev = NULL;
if( root)
{
if(!isbst(root->left))
return false;
if(prev != NULL && root->data < prev->data)
return false;
prev = root;
return isbst(root-> right);
}
return true;
}
My question is why does it work when the line static struct node * prev = NULL; was added to the code?
In my previous code even though the variable 'prev' was declared again and again it was update to the root each time..my code should have worked fine. But it didn't. what is wrong with it?
static struct node * prev = NULL;
In the above line, the use of the static keyword gives rise to two things:
1) prev is only initialised to null exactly once, i.e. the first time it is reached
2) More importantly, because prev is static, any update to its value is retained in subsequent calls to the function isBST.
In your initial/bad/non-working case without the static keyword
struct node *prev = NULL;
1) You are not retaining the value of the previous node (this is precisely why your algo didn't work)
2) Not only that you are setting it to null
In short, with the use of static, you are retaining the previous node's value (your intention). In the other case, you aren't retaining the previous node's value
static initialisation of a variable within a function scope in C++ is a neat way to retain values between recursive calls.
Given a linked list as a->x->b->y->c->z , we need to reverse alternate element and append to end of list. That is , output it as a->b->c->z->y->x.
I have an O(n) solution but it takes extra memory , we take 2 lists and fill it with alternate elements respectively , so the two lists are a b c and x y z and then we will reverse the second list and append it to the tail of first so that it becomes a b c z y x .
My question is can we do it in place ? Or is there any other algorithm for the same ?
The basic idea:
Store x.
Make a point to b.
Make y point to the stored element (x).
Make b point to c.
etc.
At the end, make the last element at an odd position point to the stored element.
Pseudo-code: (simplified end-of-list check for readability)
current = startOfList
stored = NULL
while !endOfList
temp = current.next
current.next = current.next.next
temp.next = stored
stored = temp
current = current.next
current.next = stored
Complexity:
O(n) time, O(1) space.
Here is logic in recursion mode
public static Node alRev(Node head)
{
if (head == null) return head;
if (head.next != null)
{
if (head.next.next != null)
{
Node n = head.next;
head.next = head.next.next;
n.next = null;
Node temp = alRev(head.next);
if (temp != null){
temp.next = n;
return n;
}
}
else
return head.next;
}
else
return head;
return null;
}
This is a recent question from amazon interview, the Idea looks good and there seems to be no trick in it.
Java code with comments:
static void change(Node n)
{
if(n == null)
return;
Node current = n;
Node next = null, prev = null;
while(current != null && current.next != null)
{
// One of the alternate node which is to be reversed.
Node temp = current.next;
current.next = temp.next;
// Reverse the alternate node by changing its next pointer.
temp.next = next;
next = temp;
// This node will be used in the final step
// outside the loop to attach reversed nodes.
prev = current;
current = current.next;
}
// If there are odd number of nodes in the linked list.
if(current != null)
prev = current;
// Attach the reversed list to the unreversed list.
prev.next = next;
}
here the c code which don't uses any extra space for doing this..enjoy and have fun
in case of any doubt feel free to ask
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int n;
struct link
{
int val;
struct link *next;
};
void show(struct link *);
void addatbeg(struct link **p,int num)
{
struct link *temp,*help;
help=*p;
temp=(struct link *)malloc(sizeof(struct link));
temp->val=num;
temp->next=NULL;
if(help==NULL)
{
*p=temp;
}
else
{
temp->next=help;
*p=temp;
}
n++;
show(*p);
}
void revapp(struct link **p)
{
struct link *temp,*help,*q,*r;
r=NULL;
temp=*p;
help=*p;
while(temp->next!=NULL)
{
temp=temp->next;
q=r; //this portion will revrse the even position numbers
r=temp;
temp=temp->next;
//for making a connection between odd place numbers
if(help->next->next!=NULL)
{
help->next=temp;
help=help->next;
r->next=q;
}
else
{
r->next=q;
help->next=r;
show(*p);
return;
}
}
}
void show(struct link *q)
{
struct link *temp=q;
printf("\t");
while(q!=NULL )
{
printf("%d ->",q->val);
q=q->next;
if(q==temp)
{
printf("NULL\n");
return;
}
}
printf("NULL\n");
}
int main()
{
n=0;
struct link *p;
p=NULL;
// you can take user defined input but here i am solving it on predefined list
addatbeg(&p,8);
addatbeg(&p,7);
addatbeg(&p,6);
addatbeg(&p,5);
addatbeg(&p,4);
addatbeg(&p,3);
addatbeg(&p,2);
addatbeg(&p,1);
revapp(&p);
return 0;
}`
I'm trying this question for sometime but couldn't figure out the algorithm. My preference is to do it iteratively. Till now, I've figure out something but not sure on some point.
Currently, My algorithm looks like:
First traverse the tree to find the node
While traversing the tree, keep track of the previous node.
if you find the node, check if left child is present then that is successor return.
if left child is not present then check if right child is present the that is successor and return.
if the node(is left to the parent) and don't have left or right child then we've saved the prev node earlier then either prev or prev's right child is the successor.
But what if the node we found is in the right to parent and don't have left or right child how to find successor of this node?
May be there are many flaws in this algorithm as still I've not understand all the cases properly. If anyone has any idea or algorithm please share.
Thanks in advance.
when you find a node in preorder, to find its successor is just travesing to its next node.
what I was thinking first is the relationship of a node and its successor's values in pre-oder, but I found that it seems not very clear like the relationship in in-order. I think there is only one step beteen a node and its successor(if exists) : just move on travesing. So I design this algorithm.
my algorithm below is based on preorder travesal, it can run on a binary tree,not only BST.
#define NOT_FOUND -1
#define NEXT 0
#define FOUND 1
struct node {
struct node *p;//parent,but useless here
struct node *l;//left child
struct node *r;//right child
int value;
};
int travese(struct node* bnode, int* flag,int value)
{
if(bnode == NULL)
return 0;
else
{
if(*flag == FOUND)
//when the successor is found,do pruning.
return 1;
else if(*flag == NEXT) {
printf("successor:%d\n",bnode->value);
*flag = FOUND;
return 1;
}
else if(*flag == NOT_FOUND && bnode->value == value)
*flag = NEXT;
travese(bnode->l,flag,value);
travese(bnode->r,flag,value);
}
return 0;
}
and use it by:
int flag = NOT_FOUND;
travese(root,&flag,value);
if(flag == NEXT || flag == NOT_FOUND)
printf("no successor.\n");
EDIT:
turning a recurrence algorithm to a iterative one is not difficult by using a stack like below:
int preorder_travese_with_stack(struct node* bnode, int* flag,int value)
{
if(bnode == NULL)
return 0;
struct stack s;//some kind of implement
push(s,bnode);
while(NotEmpty(s) && *flag) {
struct node *curNode = pop(s);
if(*flag == NEXT) {
printf("successor:%d\n",curNode->value);
*flag = FOUND;
return 1;
}
else if(*flag == NOT_FOUND && curNode->value == value)
*flag = NEXT;
push(s,curNode->r);
push(s,curNode->l);
}
return 0;
}
but according to your comment and original description, I think the one you want is iterative algorithm without a stack.here it is.
After thinking ,searching and trying, I wrote one. When travse the tree iteratively without stack , the parent of a node is not useless any more. In a path, some nodes is visited not only once, and you need to record its direction at that time.
int preorder_travese_without_stack(struct node *root,int value,int *flag)
{
int state=1;
//state: traveral direction on a node
//1 for going down
//2 for going up from its left chlid
//3 for going up from its right child
struct node *cur = root;
while(1) {
if(state == 1) //first visit
{
//common travese:
//printf("%d ",cur->value);
if(cur->value == value && *flag == NOT_FOUND)
*flag = NEXT;
else if (*flag==NEXT) {
*flag = FOUND;
printf("successor:%d\n",cur->value);
break;
}
}
if((state == 1)&&(cur->l!=NULL))
cur = cur->l;
else if((state==1)&&(cur->l==NULL))
{
state = 2;
continue;
}
else if(state==2) {
if(cur->r != NULL ) {
cur=cur->r;
state = 1;
}
else
{
if(cur->p!=NULL)
{
if(cur==cur->p->r)
state = 3;
//else state keeps 2
cur=cur->p;
}
else //cur->p==NULL
{
if(cur->p->r!=NULL)
{
cur=cur->p->r;
state = 1;
}
else
break;
//end up in lchild of root
//because root's rchild is NULL
}
}
continue;
}
else //state ==3
{
if(cur->p!=NULL)
{
if(cur==cur->p->l)
state = 2;
else
state = 3;
cur=cur->p;
continue;
}
else
break;
}
}
}
the usage is the same as the first recurrence one.
If you are confused yet,mostly about the direction of a node , you can draw a tree and draw the path of pre-order traverse on paper,it would help.
I'm not sure there are bugs left in the code,but it works well on the tree below:
0
/ \
1 2
/ \ / \
3 4 5 6
btw,"wirte down pre-order (or else) travese algorithm of a tree both by recurrence and iteration" is a common interview problem, although solving the latter by a stack is permitted.but I think the BST requirement is unnecessary in pre-order travese.
My implementation of the algorithm does not use the key. Therefore it is possible to use it in any kind of binary tree, not only in Binary search trees.
The algorith I used is this:
if given node is not present, return NULL
if node has left child, return left child
if node has right child, return right child
return right child of the closest ancestor whose right child is present and not yet processed
Bellow there is my solution.
TreeNode<ItemType>* CBinaryTree<ItemType>::succesorPreOrder(TreeNode<ItemType> *wStartNode)
{
//if given node is not present, return NULL
if (wStartNode == NULL) return NULL;
/* if node has left child, return left child */
if (wStartNode->left != NULL) return wStartNode->left;
/* if node has right child, return right child */
if (wStartNode->right != NULL) return wStartNode->right;
/* if node isLeaf
return right child of the closest ancestor whose right child is present and not yet processed*/
if (isLeaf(wStartNode)) {
TreeNode<ItemType> *cur = wStartNode;
TreeNode<ItemType> *y = wStartNode->parent;
while (y->right == NULL && y->parent!=NULL){
cur = y;
y = y->parent;
}
while (y != NULL && cur == y->right) {
cur = y;
y = y->parent;
}
return y->right;
}
}
bool CBinaryTree<ItemType>::isLeaf(TreeNode<ItemType> *wStartNode){
if (wStartNode->left == NULL && wStartNode->right == NULL) return true;
else return false;
};
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;
}
I have to swap two adjacent node(not their data) in a linked list.
e.g.
1) Input a->b->c->d->e->f, Output : b->a->d->c->f->e
2) Input a->b->c->d->e, Output : b->a->d->c->e
I have writen the following code is there any more efficient way (maybe with two temporary pointers) or simple logic?
node* swap(node* head) {
node *first = head;
node *second,*third,*result;
if(head == NULL || head->next == NULL) {
return head;
}
result = second = first->next;
third = second->next;
while(second != NULL) {
second->next=first;
first->next=(third->next==NULL ? third : third->next);
first=third;
second=(third->next==NULL ? third : third->next);
third=(second==NULL ? second : second->next);
}
return result;
}
Looks good. I added one correctness check (third==NULL) and removed one redundant expression. You are going through the whole list only once, which you have to do. So I think we can be pretty certain that this is the fastest way to do it.
node* swap(node* head) {
node *first = head;
node *second,*third,*result;
if(head == NULL || head->next == NULL) {
return head;
}
result = second = first->next;
third = second->next;
while(second != NULL) {
second->next=first;
second = first->next=((third==NULL || third->next==NULL) ? third : third->next);
first=third;
third=(second==NULL ? second : second->next);
}
return result;
}
You can do this fairly simply with a recursion:
// Swaps node b and c.
void swapTwo(node* a, node* b, node* c) {
if (a != NULL)
a->next = c;
b->next = c->next;
c->next = b;
}
void swapEveryTwo(node* prev, node* node) {
if (node != null && node->next != null) {
swapTwo(prev, node, node->next);
swapEveryTwo(node->next, node->next->next);
}
}
Every call of swapEveryTwo swaps pairs of nodes, and then sets up the recursion for the next pair. Also, because this function is tail recursive, the compiler will undoubtedly optimize it to a while loop, ensuring no extra stack frames are allocated, and thus will be optimal. If you need further explanation, feel free to ask.
Edited to add swap function as in original post:
node* swap(node *head) {
if (head != NULL && head->next != NULL) {
node *newHead = head->next;
swapEveryTwo(NULL, head);
return newHead;
} else {
return head;
}
}
Your algorithm is about the best possible. Often we can get a bit of speed through simplicity. Instead of drawing pictures and reasoning about pointers, think of popping elements off the head of the input list and using a queue add-to-tail operation to build up the result. In pseudocode, we have
set_empty(rtn);
while (head) {
fst = pop(head);
if (head) {
snd = pop(head);
add_at_tail(rtn, snd);
}
add_at_tail(rtn, fst);
}
The if is needed only to protect against the case where the input list has odd length. If we're sure the list is even in length, we can skip it.
Now pop is very easy to implement. The add-to-tail operation is easiest if we use a dummy head node. So in C, we have:
node *swap(node *head)
{
node dummy[1]; // set_empty(rtn);
node *rtn = dummy;
while (head) {
node *fst = head; // fst = pop(head);
head = head->next;
if (head) {
node *snd = head; // snd = pop(head);
head = head->next;
rtn->next = snd; // add_to_tail(rtn, snd);
rtn = rtn->next;
}
rtn->next = fst; // add_to_tail(rtn, fst);
rtn = rtn->next;
}
rtn->next = NULL; // terminate tail
return dummy->next;
}
Now I have not tested this code, but I'm pretty sure it will run fine modulo maybe a typo or two. There are fewer tests than yours (just one per element). Tests are comparatively expensive because they can interfere with pipelining, so mine ought to run just a tad faster. Almost certainly this difference is irrelevant.
However, I think my code rather simpler to understand. Of course that's just one biased opinion, but readability does count during maintenance.
NB Now I have done a quick test and it worked on the first try! On the other hand when I tried your code I got a segv at
first->next=(third->next==NULL ? third : third->next);
Below is the test frame. Do you see anything wrong?
typedef struct node_s {
struct node_s *next;
int val;
} node;
// swap goes here
int main(void)
{
node dummy[1];
node *p = dummy;
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
p->next = malloc(sizeof(node));
p = p->next;
p->next = NULL;
p->val = 'a' + i;
}
p = swap(dummy->next);
while (p) {
printf("%c ", p->val);
p = p->next;
}
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
In JavaScript
LinkedList.prototype.swapPairs = function() {
var recurse = function(current) {
if (!current) return this;
if (current.next) {
var save = current.next.value;
current.next.value = current.value;
current.value = save;
current = current.next;
}
return recurse(current.next);
}.bind(this);
return recurse(this.head);
}
Alex DiCarlo's recursion method is simpler but needs to be corrected slightly.
void swapEveryTwo(node* prev, node* node) {
if (node != null && node->next != null) {
swapTwo(prev, node, node->next);
swapEveryTwo(node, node->next);
}
}
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks!