Code Review Asked by Guy on the Internet on January 5, 2021
I’m trying to implement a Doubly Linked List data structure in C++. Please give me suggestions on how this code can be improved. Try to remain in C++11 because that’s what I know atm.
#ifndef DOUBLY_LINKED_LIST_HPP
#define DOUBLY_LINKED_LIST_HPP
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
class DoublyLinkedList {
template <typename T>
struct Node {
T val;
Node<T>* next;
Node<T>* prev;
};
public:
DoublyLinkedList() : len(0), head(nullptr), tail(nullptr)
{
}
DoublyLinkedList(const DoublyLinkedList& rhs) : DoublyLinkedList()
{
Node<T>* currNode = rhs.head;
while (currNode) {
this->PushBack(currNode->val);
currNode = currNode->next;
}
}
DoublyLinkedList(DoublyLinkedList&& rhs) : head(rhs.head), tail(rhs.tail), len(rhs.len)
{
rhs.head = rhs.tail = nullptr;
}
DoublyLinkedList& operator=(DoublyLinkedList rhs)
{
swap(*this, rhs);
return *this;
}
~DoublyLinkedList()
{
this->Clear();
}
const T& GetFront() const
{
return head->val;
}
const T& GetBack() const
{
return tail->val;
}
size_t GetLength() const
{
return len;
}
void PushFront(const T& val)
{
Node<T>* newNode = new Node<T>{ val, head, nullptr };
if (tail == nullptr) {
tail = newNode;
}
else {
head->prev = newNode;
}
head = newNode;
++len;
}
void PushBack(const T& val)
{
Node<T>* newNode = new Node<T>{ val, nullptr, tail };
if (head == nullptr /*&& tail == nullptr*/) {
head = newNode;
}
else {
tail->next = newNode;
}
tail = newNode;
++len;
}
void InsertAt(size_t idx, const T& val)
{
Node<T>* currNode = head;
while (idx--) {
currNode = currNode->next;
}
if (currNode == tail || currNode == nullptr) {
this->PushBack(val);
}
else if (currNode == head) {
this->PushFront(val);
}
else {
Node<T>* newNode = new Node<T>{ val, currNode, currNode->prev };
currNode->prev->next = newNode;
currNode->prev = newNode;
}
}
T PopFront()
{
T val = std::move(head->val);
Node<T>* newHead = head->next;
delete head;
if (newHead) {
newHead->prev = nullptr;
}
else {
tail = nullptr;
}
head = newHead;
--len;
return val;
}
T PopBack()
{
T val = std::move(tail->val);
Node<T>* newTail = tail->prev;
delete tail;
if (newTail) {
newTail->next = nullptr;
}
else {
head = nullptr;
}
tail = newTail;
--len;
return val;
}
T RemoveAt(size_t idx)
{
Node<T>* currNode = head;
while (idx--) {
currNode = currNode->next;
}
if (currNode == tail || currNode == nullptr) {
return this->PopBack();
}
else if (currNode == head) {
return this->PopFront();
}
else {
T val = std::move(currNode->val);
currNode->prev->next = currNode->next;
currNode->next->prev = currNode->prev;
delete currNode;
return val;
}
}
void Clear()
{
Node<T>* currNode = head;
while (currNode) {
Node<T>* nextNode = currNode->next;
delete currNode;
currNode = nextNode;
}
this->head = this->tail = nullptr;
this->len = 0;
}
friend std::ostream& operator<< (std::ostream& out, const DoublyLinkedList<T>& list)
{
out << "DoublyLinkedList{";
Node<T>* currNode = list.head;
while (currNode) {
std::cout << currNode->val;
if (currNode->next) std::cout << ", ";
currNode = currNode->next;
}
out << "}";
return out;
}
friend void swap(DoublyLinkedList<T>& lhs, DoublyLinkedList<T>& rhs)
{
std::swap(lhs.head, rhs.head);
std::swap(lhs.tail, rhs.tail);
std::swap(lhs.len, rhs.len);
return;
}
private:
Node<T>* head;
Node<T>* tail;
size_t len;
};
#endif
```
Just like the STL has its containers in the std::
namespace, it's a good practice to wrap your containers in your personal namespace too. That way you group related classes and functions together.
Node<T>
Node
template <typename T>
class DoublyLinkedList
template <typename T>
struct Node {
T val;
Node<T>* next;
Node<T>* prev;
};
There is a problem here, you don't need to write out another template for Node
since it uses the same type that DoublyLinkedList
uses. Due to this, you had to write Node < T >
everywhere, except if Node
didn't have its template, you could do Node
alone
template < typename T >
class DoublyLinkedList
{
struct Node {
T val;
Node* next; // don't require Node < T >*
Node* prev;
};
This replaces every Node < T >
with Node
in your program
Node<T>* newNode = new Node<T>{ val, head, nullptr };
Node* newNode = new Node{val, head, nullptr};
this->
~DoublyLinkedList()
{
this->Clear();
}
this->
is completely unnecessary here, you don't have to use it everywhere unless you have a good reason.
~DoublyLinkedList()
{
Clear();
}
An lvalue reference in your program already avoids a copy, with an rvalue reference you can make it even more efficient because we know that it's a temporary object, hence we can use std::move
and treat an rvalue reference differently
void PushFront(T const& val) // this remains the same
{
Node* newNode = new Node{ val, head, nullptr };
if (tail == nullptr) {
tail = newNode;
}
else {
head->prev = newNode;
}
head = newNode;
++len;
}
void PushFront(T&& val) // overload for an rvalue reference
{
Node* newNode = new Node{ std::move(val), head, nullptr };
if (tail == nullptr) {
tail = newNode;
}
else {
head->prev = newNode;
}
head = newNode;
++len;
}
std::initializer_list
Defined in header <initializer_list>
A constructor with this will make initializing your list much easier. Once you add a constructor that supports an initializer_list, you can create a list in the following manner
DoublyLinkedList < int > l { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; // ?
DoublyLinkedList < int > l2;
l2.PushBack(1);
l2.PushBack(2);
l2.PushBack(3);
l2.PushBack(4);
l2.PushBack(5); // ?
DoublyLinkedList( std::initializer_list < T > const& init); // iterate and add elements
PopBack()
on an empty listYour pop functions don't handle this exception at all, the best thing to do is use assert
to deal with this, if you look at the implementation of pop_back()
in std::list
, it does the same
void pop_back() noexcept {
#if _CONTAINER_DEBUG_LEVEL > 0
_STL_VERIFY(_Mypair._Myval2._Mysize != 0, "pop_back called on empty list");
#endif
_Unchecked_erase(_Mypair._Myval2._Myhead->_Prev);
}
A few things which you can add
empty()
returns whether the list is empty==
to check if two lists are equalConsider matching the function names in the STL
PopBack() -> pop_back()
PushBack() -> push_back()
GetLength() -> size()
I also suggest you take change DoublyLinkedList
to something like List
because the declaration gets really strange
DoublyLinkedList < DoublyLinkedList < int > > my_list;
I again recommend you wrap everything in your own namespace, that way you don't have to afraid of collisions
Correct answer by Aryan Parekh on January 5, 2021
The InsertAt()
and RemoveAt()
operations are quite expensive
when implemented to accept a position. These operations are
usually implemented using iterators, which are wrappers around
the internal node structure.
Making the stream output operator part of the class is rather inflexible. You should define a standalone non-friend function to help you dump your list. To do that non-friendliness, however, you need access to the internal node structure. But this problem fades away if you implement the iterators.
Generally, you might want to comply with the concept of the standard containers. Use the same method names (ie. size()
, push_back()
), etc.
Also, I'm not sure but maybe a standard std::swap
is going to be enough and actually more efficient. Definitely, the return on the end of void
function is useless.
Answered by slepic on January 5, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP