I just struggled through a simple interview question: Please reverse a singly linked list.
While I failed to provide a working answer in time to save the interview, I was able to come up with a solution afterwards.
Is my solution correct? How would you analyze this with Big-Oh? Are there more efficient ways to reverse a singly linked list?
// reverse a linked list
var reverseLinkedList = function(linkedlist) {
var node = linkedlist;
var previous = null;
while(node) {
// reverse pointer
node.next = previous;
// increment previous to current node
previous = node;
// increment node to next node
if (node.next){
node = node.next
} else {
node = null;
}
}
}
Note: In my search for similar posts, I did find one example in JavaScript. I was wondering if my code is possible (without a temp
variable). Thank you.
The recursive approach to reverse a linked list is simple, just we have to divide the linked lists in two parts and i.e first node and the rest of the linked list, and then call the recursion for the other part by maintaining the connection.
To reverse the linked list from position m to n, we find addresses of start and end position of the linked list by running a loop, and then we unlink this part from the rest of the list and then use the normal linked list reverse function which we have earlier used for reversing the complete linked list, and use it to ...
Given pointer to the head node of a linked list, the task is to reverse the linked list. We need to reverse the list by changing the links between nodes. Recommended: Please solve it on “ PRACTICE ” first, before moving on to the solution. Initialize three pointers prev as NULL, curr as head and next as NULL. Iterate through the linked list.
Given a linked list, write a function to reverse every k nodes (where k is an input to the function). Recommended: Please solve it on “ PRACTICE ” first, before moving on to the solution. Reverse the first sub-list of size k. While reversing keep track of the next node and previous node.
1) Divide the list in two parts - first node and rest of the linked list. 2) Call reverse for the rest of the linked list. 3) Link rest to first. 4) Fix head pointer Below is the implementation of this method. // a linked list. prev is passed as NULL initially. /* and update next ..*/ // a linked list. prev is passed as NULL initially.
When reverse () reaches the end of the list, it will grab the last node as the new head and reference each node backwards. Want to improve your JavaScript? I have a list of recommended JavaScript books.
There are a couple of problems with your code. This should make it clear.
// reverse a linked list
var reverseLinkedList = function(linkedlist) {
var node = linkedlist;
var previous = null;
while(node) {
// save next or you lose it!!!
var save = node.next;
// reverse pointer
node.next = previous;
// increment previous to current node
previous = node;
// increment node to next node or null at end of list
node = save;
}
return previous; // Change the list head !!!
}
linkedlist = reverseLinkedList(linkedlist);
You could solve this problem recursively in O(n) time as ckersch mentions. The thing is, that you need to know that recursion is memory intensive since functions accumulate in the calls stack until they hit the stop condition and start returning actual things.
The way I'd solve this problem is:
const reverse = (head) => {
if (!head || !head.next) {
return head;
}
let temp = reverse(head.next);
head.next.next = head;
head.next = undefined;
return temp;
}
When reverse() reaches the end of the list, it will grab the last node as the new head and reference each node backwards.
This would be O(n) in time, since you do a constant number of operations on each node. Conceptually, there isn't a more efficient way of doing things (in terms of big-O notation, there's some code optimization that could be done.)
The reason why you can't exceed O(n) is because, in order to do so, you would need to skip some nodes. Since you need to modify each node, this wouldn't be possible.
Efficiency then comes down to a constant factor. The fewer operations you can do per item in the list, the faster your code will execute.
I'd implement like this:
function reverseLinkedList(list, previous){
//We need to use the the current setting of
//list.next before we change it. We could save it in a temp variable,
//or, we could call reverseLinkedList recursively
if(list.next !== null){
reverseLinkedList(list.next, list);
}
//Everything after 'list' is now reversed, so we don't need list.next anymore.
//We passed previous in as an argument, so we can go ahead and set next to that.
list.next = previous;
}
reverseLinkedList(list, null);
Of course, this is recursive, so it would be inefficient in terms of space, but I like recursive code :)
This also doesn't return the reversed linked list, but we could fairly easily modify things to do so if that were important.
ES6 solution: Just keep a track of the reversed list and keep adding that to tmp.
const reverseLinkedList = (head) => {
let reversed = null;
while(head) {
const tmp = head;
head = head.next;
tmp.next = reversed;
reversed = tmp;
}
return reversed;
};
console.log(JSON.stringify(reverseLinkedList({
data: 1,
next: {
data: 2,
next: {
data: 3,
next: {
data: 4,
next: {
data: 5,
next: {
data: 5,
next: {
data: 6
}
}
}
}
}
}
})));
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With