So I've said it in the title, I want to delete the biggest value from a LinkedList, can't get my head around how to exactly do it. I tried this but I get an error.
//Remove n from list 'first'
public static void Remove(Node<int> first, Node<int> n)
{
Node<int> pos = first;
while (pos.GetNext() != n)
pos = pos.GetNext();
pos.SetNext(n.GetNext());
}
public static void DeleteMaxValue(Node<int> first)
{
int max = 0;
Node<int> pos = first;
Node<int> maxNode = null;
while(pos.GetNext() != null)
{
if (pos.GetNext().GetValue() > max)
{
maxNode = new Node<int>(pos.GetNext().GetValue());
}
pos = pos.GetNext();
}
Remove(first, maxNode);
}
imagine this is your Node structure in linked list
public class Node
{
public int data;
public Node next;
}
you can use this function to find the biggest number in the linked list and then remove it.
public int GetMax(Node head)
{
int max = int.MinValue();
while(head != null)
{
if(max < head.data)
max = head.data;
head = head.next;
}
return max;
}
Several issues:
max is never updated. It should be updated when you have found a greater value, otherwise the last positive value is considered the greatest.
maxNode is never a node that is in the list, since it is created as a new node. By consequence the Remove function will not find it and nothing gets deleted.
Your function's signature has no way of deleting the first node, since first is passed by value. There is no way to solve this for all cases, unless you change the design:
Either let first be a member of your class, and then don't pass it as argument, or
Let the function return the (potentially) new value of first, so the caller can adapt its own reference to the head of the list.
max = 0 assumes that your list cannot have negative values. In case this is possible, I would suggest initialising max with the value that is in the first node (after having checked that the list is not empty).
Instead of cycling again through the list with Remove, keep a reference to the node the precedes the node that is to be deleted.
Here is a function that returns the value of first, so the caller can make an update to their own reference in case the first node was deleted:
// Return type changed: the function will return the first node
public static Node<int> DeleteMaxValue(Node<int> first)
{
if (first == null) { // In an empty list there is nothing to delete
return;
}
int max = first.GetValue(); // Don't use 0, values might be negative
Node<int> pos = first;
Node<int> maxNode = first;
Node<int> beforeMaxNode = null; // Have a reference that lags behind
while(pos.GetNext() != null)
{
int val = pos.GetNext().GetValue();
if (val > max)
{
max = val; // Update max
beforeMaxNode = pos; // Don't create a new node
}
pos = pos.GetNext();
}
if (beforeMaxNode == null) { // First node has the maximum
// Now `first` reference will change, so it's important to return
// that new reference, else the caller will not see any change
first = maxNode.GetNext();
} else {
beforeMaxNode.SetNext(maxNode.GetNext());
}
return first;
}
I'm trying to wrap my head around linked lists and I have this code sample here:
public class SinglyLinkedListNode {
public int data;
public SinglyLinkedListNode next;
public SinglyLinkedListNode(int data) {
this.data = data;
this.next = null;
}
public void Print() {
Console.WriteLine(data);
if(next != null) {
next.Print();
}
}
}
public class SinglyLinkedList {
public SinglyLinkedListNode headNode;
public SinglyLinkedList() {
headNode = null;
}
public void Print() {
if(headNode != null) {
headNode.Print();
}
}
}
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
SinglyLinkedList list = new SinglyLinkedList();
int listCount = 5;
for(int i = 0; i < listCount; i++) {
int listItem = i + 1;
SinglyLinkedListNode list_head = InsertNodeAtTail(list.headNode, listItem);
list.headNode = list_head;
}
list.Print();
}
static SinglyLinkedListNode InsertNodeAtTail(SinglyLinkedListNode head, int data) {
if (head == null) {
head = new SinglyLinkedListNode(data);
return head;
} else {
var temp = head;
while (temp.next != null) {
temp = temp.next;
}
temp.next = new SinglyLinkedListNode(data);
return head;
}
}
}
in the InsertNodeAtTail method in the else statement where it's basically storing the passed in headNode as a temp variable and at the very end of it it set the temp variables next pointer to the new data were passing in and then return head. In this scenario how does head track the changes in the temp variable?
When I debug this and check the return head value it has all the changes that I've done to the temp variable but the head value was never really modified/used besides the part where it's being assigned to the temp variable.
Example is let's say we got a list 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> and were adding in 6
6 gets added into the temp.next and on return head, the head value contains 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> 6 but we've never done anything to head? All changes were to the temp variable.
Sorry if this might be a stupid question but I'm just not getting how this works.
Thanks
When I debug this and check the return head value it has all the changes that I've done to the temp variable but the head value was never really modified/used besides the part where it's being assigned to the temp variable.
temp is a reference to an SinglyLinkedListNode.
When you call the following code it keeps changing the reference of temp to the next SinglyLinkedListNode in the chain until you reach the last node. At this point temp is referring to the 5 in your example, and appends your new 6 to the end. No change is made to the head.
Since it is a chain 1 -> 3 -> 5, adding 6 to the end affects the whole chain and now becomes 1-> 3 -> 5 -> 6.
var temp = head;
while (temp.next != null) {
temp = temp.next;
}
I have an IEnumerable of a custom type. (That I've gotten from a SelectMany)
I also have an item (myItem) in that IEnumerable that I desire the previous and next item from the IEnumerable.
Currently, I'm doing the desired like this:
var previousItem = myIEnumerable.Reverse().SkipWhile(
i => i.UniqueObjectID != myItem.UniqueObjectID).Skip(1).FirstOrDefault();
I can get the next item by simply ommitting the .Reverse.
or, I could:
int index = myIEnumerable.ToList().FindIndex(
i => i.UniqueObjectID == myItem.UniqueObjectID)
and then use .ElementAt(index +/- 1) to get the previous or next item.
Which is better between the two options?
Is there an even better option available?
"Better" includes a combination of performance (memory and speed) and readability; with readability being my primary concern.
First off
"Better" includes a combination of performance (memory and speed)
In general you can't have both, the rule of thumb is, if you optimise for speed, it'll cost memory, if you optimise for memory, it'll cost you speed.
There is a better option, that performs well on both memory and speed fronts, and can be used in a readable manner (I'm not delighted with the function name, however, FindItemReturningPreviousItemFoundItemAndNextItem is a bit of a mouthful).
So, it looks like it's time for a custom find extension method, something like . . .
public static IEnumerable<T> FindSandwichedItem<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, Predicate<T> matchFilling)
{
if (items == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("items");
if (matchFilling == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("matchFilling");
return FindSandwichedItemImpl(items, matchFilling);
}
private static IEnumerable<T> FindSandwichedItemImpl<T>(IEnumerable<T> items, Predicate<T> matchFilling)
{
using(var iter = items.GetEnumerator())
{
T previous = default(T);
while(iter.MoveNext())
{
if(matchFilling(iter.Current))
{
yield return previous;
yield return iter.Current;
if (iter.MoveNext())
yield return iter.Current;
else
yield return default(T);
yield break;
}
previous = iter.Current;
}
}
// If we get here nothing has been found so return three default values
yield return default(T); // Previous
yield return default(T); // Current
yield return default(T); // Next
}
You can cache the result of this to a list if you need to refer to the items more than once, but it returns the found item, preceded by the previous item, followed by the following item. e.g.
var sandwichedItems = myIEnumerable.FindSandwichedItem(item => item.objectId == "MyObjectId").ToList();
var previousItem = sandwichedItems[0];
var myItem = sandwichedItems[1];
var nextItem = sandwichedItems[2];
The defaults to return if it's the first or last item may need to change depending on your requirements.
Hope this helps.
For readability, I'd load the IEnumerable into a linked list:
var e = Enumerable.Range(0,100);
var itemIKnow = 50;
var linkedList = new LinkedList<int>(e);
var listNode = linkedList.Find(itemIKnow);
var next = listNode.Next.Value; //probably a good idea to check for null
var prev = listNode.Previous.Value; //ditto
By creating an extension method for establishing context to the current element you can use a Linq query like this:
var result = myIEnumerable.WithContext()
.Single(i => i.Current.UniqueObjectID == myItem.UniqueObjectID);
var previous = result.Previous;
var next = result.Next;
The extension would be something like this:
public class ElementWithContext<T>
{
public T Previous { get; private set; }
public T Next { get; private set; }
public T Current { get; private set; }
public ElementWithContext(T current, T previous, T next)
{
Current = current;
Previous = previous;
Next = next;
}
}
public static class LinqExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<ElementWithContext<T>>
WithContext<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
T previous = default(T);
T current = source.FirstOrDefault();
foreach (T next in source.Union(new[] { default(T) }).Skip(1))
{
yield return new ElementWithContext<T>(current, previous, next);
previous = current;
current = next;
}
}
}
You could cache the enumerable in a list
var myList = myIEnumerable.ToList()
iterate over it by index
for (int i = 0; i < myList.Count; i++)
then the current element is myList[i], the previous element is myList[i-1], and the next element is myList[i+1]
(Don't forget about the special cases of the first and last elements in the list.)
You are really over complicating things:
Sometimes just a for loop is going to be better to do something, and I think provide a clearer implementation of what you are trying to do/
var myList = myIEnumerable.ToList();
for(i = 0; i < myList.Length; i++)
{
if(myList[i].UniqueObjectID == myItem.UniqueObjectID)
{
previousItem = myList[(i - 1) % (myList.Length - 1)];
nextItem = myList[(i + 1) % (myList.Length - 1)];
}
}
Here is a LINQ extension method that returns the current item, along with the previous and the next. It yields ValueTuple<T, T, T> values to avoid allocations. The source is enumerated once.
/// <summary>
/// Projects each element of a sequence into a tuple that includes the previous
/// and the next element.
/// </summary>
public static IEnumerable<(T Previous, T Current, T Next)> WithPreviousAndNext<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source, T firstPrevious = default, T lastNext = default)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(source);
(T Previous, T Current, bool HasPrevious) queue = (default, firstPrevious, false);
foreach (var item in source)
{
if (queue.HasPrevious)
yield return (queue.Previous, queue.Current, item);
queue = (queue.Current, item, true);
}
if (queue.HasPrevious)
yield return (queue.Previous, queue.Current, lastNext);
}
Usage example:
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 5);
Console.WriteLine($"Source: {String.Join(", ", source)}");
var result = source.WithPreviousAndNext(firstPrevious: -1, lastNext: -1);
Console.WriteLine($"Result: {String.Join(", ", result)}");
Output:
Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Result: (-1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 3), (2, 3, 4), (3, 4, 5), (4, 5, -1)
To get the previous and the next of a specific item, you could use tuple deconstruction:
var (previous, current, next) = myIEnumerable
.WithPreviousAndNext()
.First(e => e.Current.UniqueObjectID == myItem.UniqueObjectID);
CPU
Depends entirely on where the object is in the sequence. If it is located at the end I would expect the second to be faster with more than a factor 2 (but only a constant factor). If it is located in the beginning the first will be faster because you don't traverse the whole list.
Memory
The first is iterating the sequence without saving the sequence so the memory hit will be very small. The second solution will take as much memory as the length of the list * references + objects + overhead.
I thought I would try to answer this using Zip from Linq.
string[] items = {"nought","one","two","three","four"};
var item = items[2];
var sandwiched =
items
.Zip( items.Skip(1), (previous,current) => new { previous, current } )
.Zip( items.Skip(2), (pair,next) => new { pair.previous, pair.current, next } )
.FirstOrDefault( triplet => triplet.current == item );
This will return a anonymous type {previous,current,next}.
Unfortunately this will only work for indexes 1,2 and 3.
string[] items = {"nought","one","two","three","four"};
var item = items[4];
var pad1 = Enumerable.Repeat( "", 1 );
var pad2 = Enumerable.Repeat( "", 2 );
var padded = pad1.Concat( items );
var next1 = items.Concat( pad1 );
var next2 = items.Skip(1).Concat( pad2 );
var sandwiched =
padded
.Zip( next1, (previous,current) => new { previous, current } )
.Zip( next2, (pair,next) => new { pair.previous, pair.current, next } )
.FirstOrDefault( triplet => triplet.current == item );
This version will work for all indexes.
Both version use lazy evaluation courtesy of Linq.
Here are some extension methods as promised. The names are generic and reusable with any type simple and there are lookup overloads to get at the item needed to get the next or previous items. I would benchmark the solutions and then see where you could squeeze cycles out.
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static T Previous<T>(this List<T> list, T item) {
var index = list.IndexOf(item) - 1;
return index > -1 ? list[index] : default(T);
}
public static T Next<T>(this List<T> list, T item) {
var index = list.IndexOf(item) + 1;
return index < list.Count() ? list[index] : default(T);
}
public static T Previous<T>(this List<T> list, Func<T, Boolean> lookup) {
var item = list.SingleOrDefault(lookup);
var index = list.IndexOf(item) - 1;
return index > -1 ? list[index] : default(T);
}
public static T Next<T>(this List<T> list, Func<T,Boolean> lookup) {
var item = list.SingleOrDefault(lookup);
var index = list.IndexOf(item) + 1;
return index < list.Count() ? list[index] : default(T);
}
public static T PreviousOrFirst<T>(this List<T> list, T item) {
if(list.Count() < 1)
throw new Exception("No array items!");
var previous = list.Previous(item);
return previous == null ? list.First() : previous;
}
public static T NextOrLast<T>(this List<T> list, T item) {
if(list.Count() < 1)
throw new Exception("No array items!");
var next = list.Next(item);
return next == null ? list.Last() : next;
}
public static T PreviousOrFirst<T>(this List<T> list, Func<T,Boolean> lookup) {
if(list.Count() < 1)
throw new Exception("No array items!");
var previous = list.Previous(lookup);
return previous == null ? list.First() : previous;
}
public static T NextOrLast<T>(this List<T> list, Func<T,Boolean> lookup) {
if(list.Count() < 1)
throw new Exception("No array items!");
var next = list.Next(lookup);
return next == null ? list.Last() : next;
}
}
And you can use them like this.
var previous = list.Previous(obj);
var next = list.Next(obj);
var previousWithLookup = list.Previous((o) => o.LookupProperty == otherObj.LookupProperty);
var nextWithLookup = list.Next((o) => o.LookupProperty == otherObj.LookupProperty);
var previousOrFirst = list.PreviousOrFirst(obj);
var nextOrLast = list.NextOrLast(ob);
var previousOrFirstWithLookup = list.PreviousOrFirst((o) => o.LookupProperty == otherObj.LookupProperty);
var nextOrLastWithLookup = list.NextOrLast((o) => o.LookupProperty == otherObj.LookupProperty);
I use the following technique:
var items = new[] { "Bob", "Jon", "Zac" };
var sandwiches = items
.Sandwich()
.ToList();
Which produces this result:
Notice that there are nulls for the first Previous value, and the last Next value.
It uses the following extension method:
public static IEnumerable<(T Previous, T Current, T Next)> Sandwich<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, T beforeFirst = default, T afterLast = default)
{
var sourceList = source.ToList();
T previous = beforeFirst;
T current = sourceList.FirstOrDefault();
foreach (var next in sourceList.Skip(1))
{
yield return (previous, current, next);
previous = current;
current = next;
}
yield return (previous, current, afterLast);
}
If you need it for every element in myIEnumerable I’d just iterate through it keeping references to the 2 previous elements. In the body of the loop I'd do the processing for the second previous element and the current would be its descendant and first previous its ancestor.
If you need it for only one element I'd choose your first approach.
I am working on creating my own LinkedList. But I can't seem to solve this error. Can anyone help me!
The problem is that I want to insert an object after a particular element. I have created Find method to search for that particular item and return its reference, but I can't seem to solve it.
CustomLinkedList c = new CustomLinkedList();
c.Add(31);
c.Add(45);
c.Add(23);
c.Add(36);
c.PrintList();
Console.WriteLine("\n" + " Process of adding item at a spectifed location");
c.Addafter(66,23);
c.PrintList();
class Node
{
public object Element;
public Node Link;
public Node()
{
Element = null;
Link = null;
}
public Node(object TheElement)
{
Element = TheElement;
Link = null;
}
class CustomLinkedList
{
protected Node header;
protected Node last;
public CustomLinkedList()
{
//header = new Node("header");
}
private Node Find(object Item)
{
Node Current = new Node();
Current = header;
while (Current.Element != Item && Current.Link !=null)
{
Current = Current.Link;
}
return Current;
}
public void PrintList()
{
Node n = new Node();
n = header;
while (n != null)
{
Console.WriteLine(n.Element);
n = n.Link;
}
}
public void Add(object a)
{
Node n = new Node();
n.Element = a;
n.Link = null;
if (last == null)
{
header = n;
last = n;
}
else
{
last.Link = n;
last = n;
}
}
public void Addafter(object newitem, object After)
{
Node current = new Node();
Node newNode = new Node(newitem);
current = Find(After);
newNode.Link = current.Link;
current.Link = newNode;
}
}
The reason why it doesn't work is on this line:
while (Current.Element != Item && Current.Link !=null)
The == and != operators for the object type check for reference equality. If you're using your list with a value type (int for instance), the values will be boxed to distinct objects, and the != operator will always return true (see this article for details about boxing).
Consider this:
object x = 42;
object y = 42;
Console.WriteLine(x == y); // prints False
Console.WriteLine(x.Equals(y)); // prints True
Your current code is working fine with reference types:
var list = new CustomLinkedList();
list.Add("hello");
list.Add("!");
list.Addafter("world", "hello");
list.PrintList();
Output:
hello
world
!
But for value types it never finds the "after" value, so it appends the new item to the end of the list:
var list = new CustomLinkedList();
list.Add(1);
list.Add(3);
list.Addafter(2, 1);
list.PrintList();
Output:
1
3
2
So you need to replace the == operator with a call to Equals:
while (!object.Equals(Current.Element, Item) && Current.Link !=null)
I don't know what you're using for testing but value types won't work the way you think it should because the box values are being compared.
For example this will always return 3 (last element in list)
CustomLinkedList cList= new CustomLinkedList();
cList.Add(1);
cList.Add(2);
cList.Add(3);
Console.WriteLine(cList.Find(2).Element);
but this will work (output 2)
CustomLinkedList cll = new CustomLinkedList();
object a = 1;
object b = 2;
object c = 3;
cll.Add(a);
cll.Add(b);
cll.Add(c);
Console.WriteLine(cll.Find(b).Element);
The same goes for reference types that don't implement the != operators. So strings will work but little else will
Your code has 2 problems
The Find() function is returning the Tail element when the Item is not in the List.
Comparing n.Element and Item is tricky when they are of type object. Make your classes generic to solve that.
...
class CustomLinkedList<T> where T : IEquatable
{
....
private Node Find(object Item)
{
Node Current = header; // null for empty list
//while (Current.Element != Item && Current.Link !=null)
while(Current != null)
{
if (Current.Equals(Item) ) // can't always use ==
break;
Current = Current.Link;
}
return Current;
}
}
I hope I am using the right terminology.
I have made a single-chained list.
class MyStack
{
public Node Initial { get; set; }
public MyStack()
{
Initial = null;
}
public void Push(int data)
{
var node = new Node { Data = data, Next = Initial };
Initial = node;
}
public int Pop()
{
int res = Initial.Data;
Initial = Initial.Next;
return res;
}
public int Sum()
{
int sum = 0;
Node currentNode = Initial;
while (currentNode != null)
{
sum += currentNode.Data;
currentNode = currentNode.Next;
}
return sum;
}
public int Count()
{
int count = 0;
Node currentNode = Initial;
while (currentNode != null)
{
count++;
currentNode = currentNode.Next;
}
return count;
}
public void PrintAll()
{
Node currentNode = Initial;
while(currentNode != null)
{
Console.WriteLine("tmp.Data = " + currentNode.Data);
currentNode = currentNode.Next;
}
}
}
public class Node
{
public int Data;
public Node Next;
}
Meaning you can do something like this:
var s = new MyStack();
s.Push(5);
s.Push(3);
s.Push(7);
s.PrintAll();
Console.WriteLine("Sum: " + s.Sum());
Console.WriteLine("Count: " + s.Count());
Now, I want to try and make a Reverse method. This seems to be working:
public void Reverse()
{
Node predesesor, location;
location = Initial;
predesesor = null;
while(Initial != null)
{
Initial = Initial.Next;
location.Next = predesesor;
predesesor = location;
location = Initial;
}
Initial = predesesor;
}
I am hardly able to see how it works, and it will be tough to maintain.
It seems more like a hack than anything else.
Can you offer any assistance?
It doesn't seem like a hack to me and I don't see what's there to maintain (it is either correct or not, what else would you do with it?). If you want to figure out how it works, "execute" each step on paper. Draw a list (e.g 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> 7 -> 9 -> NULL), mark out where all Nodes point at any time and start "single-stepping".
I couldn't think of a cleaner way to reverse a singly linked list. You need a reference to the next node (Initial at the beginning of the loop), before you can reverse the link between current node and previous node. You just won't be able to move on in the original list otherwise.
What you could do is fix the spelling of the variables and perhaps not use Initial in the loop itself (use a third variable, so the role of each variable is clearer) and only set Initial to the first Node in the reversed list at the end.
So, all in all:
public void Reverse() {
Node current = Initial, previous = null;
while (current) {
Node next = current.Next;
current.Next = previous;
previous = current;
current = next;
}
Initial = previous;
}
One solution would be to turn it into a doubly-linked list, and then work backwards using the previous node property:
public class Node
{
public int Data;
public Node Next;
public Node Previous;
}
There is already a doubly-linked list in the framework if you want to save yourself some effort.
you can do it recursivly:
a->b->c->d
a->null
b->null
c->null
c<-d
b<-c
a<-b
a<-b<-c<-d
public void Reverse()
{
Reverse(Initial);
}
private void Reverse(Node node)
{
if(node != null && node.Next != null)
{
//go deeper
Reverse(node.Next);
//swap
node.Next.Next = node
node.Next = null;
}
}
Instead of reinventing the wheel you should check, if there is already something you can use something from .Net Framework.
For example i would take here the LinkedList with the LinkedListNode. In other cases you could probably take the Queue or a Stack.
If you call it "nreverse" or "reverse in place" then any developer worth tuppence would recognise it as a classic algorithm rather than a hack.
It shouldn't require much maintenance, except maybe renaming any incorrectly spelled variables.
The following code might be a bit more intuitive:
public void Reverse()
{
MyStack reverse = new MyStack();
while (Initial != null)
{
reverse.Push(this.Pop());
}
Initial = reverse.Initial;
}
(Reverse is a member method of the MyStack class).
Of course, it does require twice the space compared with the original code.
stack s1
s1.push_front(...)
...
s1.push_front(...)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
void reverse(stack& to,stack_or_list& s )
while(!s.empty()){
to.push_front(s.pop_front());
}
}
now a series of to.pop_fronts gets you what you want
stack_or_list needs: pop_front empty
to needs: push_front,pop_front