问题
I can use the std::collections::BinaryHeap
to iterate over a collection of a struct in the greatest to least order with pop
, but my goal is to iterate over the collection from least to greatest.
I have succeeded by reversing the Ord
implementation:
impl Ord for Item {
fn cmp(&self, other: &Self) -> Ordering {
match self.offset {
b if b > other.offset => Ordering::Less,
b if b < other.offset => Ordering::Greater,
b if b == other.offset => Ordering::Equal,
_ => Ordering::Equal, // ?not sure why compiler needs this
}
}
}
Now the BinaryHeap
returns the Item
s in least to greatest. Seeing as how this is not the intended API, is this an incorrect or error prone pattern?
I realize that a LinkedList
would give me the pop_front
method, but I would need to sort the list on insert. Is that the better solution?
回答1:
Reversing the order of a type inside the heap is fine. However, you don't need to implement your own order reversal. Instead, use std::cmp::Reverse or Ordering::reverse as appropriate.
If it makes sense for your type to actually be less than another value when some field is greater, implement your own Ord
:
impl Ord for Item {
fn cmp(&self, other: &Self) -> Ordering {
self.offset.cmp(other).reverse()
}
}
If you do not wish to change the ordering of your type, flip the ordering when you put it in the BinaryHeap
:
use std::{cmp::Reverse, collections::BinaryHeap};
fn main() {
let mut a: BinaryHeap<_> = vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect();
if let Some(v) = a.pop() {
println!("Next is {}", v);
}
let mut b: BinaryHeap<_> = vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().map(Reverse).collect();
if let Some(Reverse(v)) = b.pop() {
println!("Next is {}", v);
}
}
Next is 3
Next is 1
See also:
- How can I implement a min-heap of f64 with Rust's BinaryHeap?
- How do I select different std::cmp::Ord (or other trait) implementations for a given type?
Is [a
LinkedList
] the better solution?
99.9% of the time, a linked list is not a better solution.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54489368/how-do-i-create-a-binaryheap-that-pops-the-smallest-value-not-the-largest