问题
So I really struggled with this and even now I am not happy with my solution.
I have a set
that at least contains 0, and may contain other positive int
s. I need to find the first positive number not in the set
.
So writing a standard while
-loop to accomplish this is easy.
i = foo.begin();
while (i != prev(foo.end()) && *i + 1 == *next(i)){
++i;
}
cout << "First number that cannot be formed " << *i + 1 << endl;
But when I try to write an STL algorithm version of the loop I get something that fails like this loop:
auto i = foo.begin();
while (++i != prev(foo.end()) && *prev(i) + 1 == *i);
cout << "First number that cannot be formed " << *prev(i) + 1 << endl;
Both of these loops correctly yield 3 in the case of:
set<int> foo{0, 1, 2, 4};
But the second loop incorrectly yields 3 instead of 4 in this case:
set<int> foo{0, 1, 2, 3};
How can I write this using an STL algorithm and accomplish the behavior of the first loop?
EDIT:
After seeing some of the answers, I'd like to increase the difficulty. What I really want is something that doesn't require temporary variables and can be placed in a cout
statement.
回答1:
The problem with your loop is that you stop one element too early. This works:
while (++i != foo.end() && *prev(i) + 1 == *i);
The difference to the first loop is the condition *prev(i) + 1 == *i)
instead of *i + 1 == *next(i)
; the range you check has to shift accordingly.
You could also use std::adjacent_find
:
auto i = std::adjacent_find(begin(s), end(s), [](int i, int j) { return i + 1 != j; });
if(i == s.end()) {
std::cout << *s.rbegin() + 1 << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << *i + 1 << std::endl;
}
Response to the edit: A way to make it prettily inlineable is
std::cout << std::accumulate(begin(s), end(s), 0,
[](int last, int x) {
return last + 1 == x ? x : last;
}) + 1 << '\n';
...but this is less efficient because it does not short-circuit when it finds a gap. Another way that does short-circuit is
std::cout << *std::mismatch(begin (s),
prev(end (s)),
next(begin(s)),
[](int lhs, int rhs) {
return lhs + 1 == rhs;
}).first + 1 << '\n';
回答2:
Have you tried adjacent_find
?
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
int main()
{
std::set<int> foo{0, 1, 2, 4};
auto it = std::adjacent_find(begin(foo), end(foo),
[](auto e1, auto e2){ return (e2 - e1) > 1; });
// precondition: foo is not empty
if (it == end(foo)) --it;
std::cout << *it+1;
}
EDIT: OK, if you consider Boost standard enough, you can do this, which is damn nice:
#include <algorithm>
#include <boost/iterator/counting_iterator.hpp>
#include <set>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::set<int> foo{0, 1, 2, 4};
auto it =
std::mismatch(
begin(foo), end(foo),
boost::counting_iterator<int>(*begin(foo))
);
std::cout << *it.second;
}
Live example.
EDIT 2: another one I thought of while reading another question:
int i = 0;
std::find_if(begin(foo), end(foo),
[&i](int e){ return e != i++; });
std::cout << i;
Which is just another way of previus one with mismatch
.
回答3:
You're hitting a fringe case. Your while loop is failing once i == location at the end of the set. In this case it is ending at i == 3. You need to let i walk past the bounds of your array in order to make this work.
You can do this by changing line 2 to :
while (++i **<**= prev(foo.end()) && *prev(i) + 1 == *i);
By making it <=, i will fail once it is past the value at the end of foo.
Here's a few other things to think about: 1) Sets aren't guaranteed to be sorted. 2) What happens in the situation where set foo(0, 1, 1); i.e. duplicates where the one that fails is correct but it is also the one at the end of the set?
You'll need a slightly more complex algorithm to catch all of these cases.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27861373/find-first-two-non-adjacent-elements-in-a-set-using-an-stl-algorithm