What could be a more efficient and/or elegant way to find if two (or 'n') particular values are present in a...












0












$begingroup$


I have a solution to find if two values are present in a tree.



I would like to know if there is a

[1] More efficient way to do this ?

[2] More elegant way to this ?

[3] I have mentioned, in comments, the sections of code which I feel could be
done in a better way. Would appreciate suggestions on those sections.

[4] How can we generalize the solution if we have to check if some 'n'
values(all of them) are present in tree or not ?



I have a working solution mentioned in the code below but I think the same could be achieved using a more elegant and efficient code.



/*The structure of a BST Node is as follows:
struct Node {
int data;
Node * right, * left;
};*/

void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2);

bool CheckIfValuesPresentInTree(Node* root, int n1, int n2) {
auto f1 = bool{false};
auto f2 = bool{false};

IsPresent(root, n1, n2, f1, f2);

return f1&&f2;
}

void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2) {
// Too many arguments passed to the function.
if (!p) {
return;
}

if (p->data == n1) {
f1 = true;
}

if (p->data == n2) {
f2 = true;
}

IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
// Second recursive call might not be needed if both n1 and n2 are found
// in 1st call.
// We can write something like below : but is there a better way ?
/*
IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
if (f1 && f2) {
return;
}
IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
*/
}








share









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I have a solution to find if two values are present in a tree.



    I would like to know if there is a

    [1] More efficient way to do this ?

    [2] More elegant way to this ?

    [3] I have mentioned, in comments, the sections of code which I feel could be
    done in a better way. Would appreciate suggestions on those sections.

    [4] How can we generalize the solution if we have to check if some 'n'
    values(all of them) are present in tree or not ?



    I have a working solution mentioned in the code below but I think the same could be achieved using a more elegant and efficient code.



    /*The structure of a BST Node is as follows:
    struct Node {
    int data;
    Node * right, * left;
    };*/

    void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2);

    bool CheckIfValuesPresentInTree(Node* root, int n1, int n2) {
    auto f1 = bool{false};
    auto f2 = bool{false};

    IsPresent(root, n1, n2, f1, f2);

    return f1&&f2;
    }

    void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2) {
    // Too many arguments passed to the function.
    if (!p) {
    return;
    }

    if (p->data == n1) {
    f1 = true;
    }

    if (p->data == n2) {
    f2 = true;
    }

    IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
    IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
    // Second recursive call might not be needed if both n1 and n2 are found
    // in 1st call.
    // We can write something like below : but is there a better way ?
    /*
    IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
    if (f1 && f2) {
    return;
    }
    IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
    */
    }








    share









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I have a solution to find if two values are present in a tree.



      I would like to know if there is a

      [1] More efficient way to do this ?

      [2] More elegant way to this ?

      [3] I have mentioned, in comments, the sections of code which I feel could be
      done in a better way. Would appreciate suggestions on those sections.

      [4] How can we generalize the solution if we have to check if some 'n'
      values(all of them) are present in tree or not ?



      I have a working solution mentioned in the code below but I think the same could be achieved using a more elegant and efficient code.



      /*The structure of a BST Node is as follows:
      struct Node {
      int data;
      Node * right, * left;
      };*/

      void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2);

      bool CheckIfValuesPresentInTree(Node* root, int n1, int n2) {
      auto f1 = bool{false};
      auto f2 = bool{false};

      IsPresent(root, n1, n2, f1, f2);

      return f1&&f2;
      }

      void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2) {
      // Too many arguments passed to the function.
      if (!p) {
      return;
      }

      if (p->data == n1) {
      f1 = true;
      }

      if (p->data == n2) {
      f2 = true;
      }

      IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      // Second recursive call might not be needed if both n1 and n2 are found
      // in 1st call.
      // We can write something like below : but is there a better way ?
      /*
      IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      if (f1 && f2) {
      return;
      }
      IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      */
      }








      share









      $endgroup$




      I have a solution to find if two values are present in a tree.



      I would like to know if there is a

      [1] More efficient way to do this ?

      [2] More elegant way to this ?

      [3] I have mentioned, in comments, the sections of code which I feel could be
      done in a better way. Would appreciate suggestions on those sections.

      [4] How can we generalize the solution if we have to check if some 'n'
      values(all of them) are present in tree or not ?



      I have a working solution mentioned in the code below but I think the same could be achieved using a more elegant and efficient code.



      /*The structure of a BST Node is as follows:
      struct Node {
      int data;
      Node * right, * left;
      };*/

      void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2);

      bool CheckIfValuesPresentInTree(Node* root, int n1, int n2) {
      auto f1 = bool{false};
      auto f2 = bool{false};

      IsPresent(root, n1, n2, f1, f2);

      return f1&&f2;
      }

      void IsPresent(Node* p, int n1, int n2, bool& f1, bool& f2) {
      // Too many arguments passed to the function.
      if (!p) {
      return;
      }

      if (p->data == n1) {
      f1 = true;
      }

      if (p->data == n2) {
      f2 = true;
      }

      IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      // Second recursive call might not be needed if both n1 and n2 are found
      // in 1st call.
      // We can write something like below : but is there a better way ?
      /*
      IsPresent(p->left, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      if (f1 && f2) {
      return;
      }
      IsPresent(p->right, n1, n2, f1, f2);
      */
      }






      c++ c++11 tree





      share












      share










      share



      share










      asked 4 mins ago









      kapilkapil

      504




      504






















          0






          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "196"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f212442%2fwhat-could-be-a-more-efficient-and-or-elegant-way-to-find-if-two-or-n-partic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes








          0






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f212442%2fwhat-could-be-a-more-efficient-and-or-elegant-way-to-find-if-two-or-n-partic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

          How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

          TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'