Remove duplicates from unsorted linked list

Question

Remove duplicate elements from linked list.

#include<iostream>
using namespace std;

class LinkedList{
private:
    int data;
    LinkedList *next;
public:
    void insert(LinkedList **start, int data){
        LinkedList *p = new LinkedList;
        if (*start == NULL){
            p->data = data;
            p->next = NULL;
            *start = p;
        }
        else{
            LinkedList *temp = *start;
            while (temp->next != NULL){
                temp = temp->next;
            }
            temp->next = p;
            p->data = data;
            p->next = NULL;
        }
    }
    void removeDuplicates(LinkedList **start){//This function removes the duplicates using the standard runner method taking 2 pointers
        LinkedList *temp = *start;
        LinkedList *temp1 = (*start);
        while (temp != NULL){
                while (temp1->next!=NULL){
                    if (temp->data == temp1->next->data){
                        LinkedList *p;
                        p = temp1->next;
                        temp1->next = temp1->next->next;
                        delete(p);
                    }
                    else{
                        temp1 = temp1->next;
                    }

                }

            temp = temp->next;
            temp1 = temp;
        }
    }

    void traverse(LinkedList **start){
        LinkedList *temp = *start;
        while (temp != NULL){
            cout << temp->data;
            temp = temp->next;
        }
    }
};

int main(){
    LinkedList *start = NULL;
    LinkedList p1;
    p1.insert(&start, 9);
    p1.insert(&start, 8);
    p1.insert(&start, 7);
    p1.insert(&start, 9);
    p1.insert(&start, 8);
    p1.traverse(&start);
    p1.removeDuplicates(&start);
    cout << "\n";
    p1.traverse(&start);
    getchar();
    return 0;
}

This takes \$O(N^2)\$ time. Can we do the same in \$O(N)\$ without the use of hash table? Or if mandatory how can we implement it in C++?

How is the overall code quality of the above code? Is there any scope of improvement?

Answer 1

I see a number of things that may help you improve your code.

Make sure you have all required #includes

The code uses getchar but doesn't #include <cstdio>. Also, carefully consider which #includes are part of the interface (and belong in the .h file) and which are part of the implementation.

Avoid raw pointers

In modern C++, we tend not to use raw pointers very often. In this case, It would probably be better to have two different classes, one would be a LinkedList class and the other would be a Node class. That way, instead of starting with a pointer, you can start with an object.

Use nullptr rather than NULL

Modern C++ uses nullptr rather than NULL. See this answer for why and how it's useful.

Match new with delete

If you allocate memory using new, you must also free it using delete or your program will leak memory. Since you use new in insert(), you should use delete in the LinkedList destructor which you have not yet written.

Don't abuse using namespace std

Putting using namespace std within your program is generally a bad habit that you'd do well to avoid.

Use more descriptive names

The code's traverse function actually prints the nodes. For that reason it should probably be named something like print(). Even better would be to have such a function take a std::ostream& argument so it would be possible to print to something other than std::cout.

Omit return 0

If your program completes successfully, the return 0 at the end of main() will be generated automatically, so it's not needed in C++ programs.

Answer 2

In both pathes of if .. else you have the identical Code. Take it out of the condition, DRY:

void insert(LinkedList **start, int data)
{
    LinkedList *p = new LinkedList;
    p->data = data;
    p->next = NULL;

    if (*start == NULL) 
    {
        *start = p;
    }
    else
    {
        LinkedList *temp = *start;
        while (temp->next != NULL)
        {
            temp = temp->next;
        }

        temp->next = p;
    }
}

Answer 3

I don't know how to identify duplicate values in an unsorted container allowing duplicates in \$O(N)\$ time without hashing.
Nits:

• state upfront your goal coding what you present
• you tagged the question oop: move non-List members to a class LinkedNode
• in insert(), both branches of the if-statement share code
• Use references (there should be a trivial way "in CR" to refer to
  Scott Meyers "Effective C++"/"Effective Modern C++" or equiv.)
• don't use different notations for the same "thing"
  (initialisers for temp and temp1)
• with loops having a "while"-condition, an advance to next iteration, and possibly an initialise, use for

shot:

void removeDuplicates(LinkedNode *node) {
    for ( ; nullptr != node ; node = node->next) {
        LinkedNode *prev = node, *other;
        while (nullptr != (other = prev->next))
            if (node->data == other->data) {
                prev->next = other->next;
                delete(other);
            } else
                prev = other;
    }
}

Answer 4

Step 1: Sort the list using merge sort - O(nlog n). Step 2: Remove duplicate elements iterating from second position by comparing current node against the previous one - O(n).

Overall complexity will be O(nlog n) + O(n).

Answer 5

I'd just like to mention the naming in your code. First, the word data is meaningless. Every byte in the computer is some sort of data. I realize this is a contrived example since the data doesn't actually represent anything. But in real code, you should avoid generic terms like "data," "value," "info," etc.

Secondly, naming variables temp and temp1 is even less meaningful. temp implies a temporary variable. If these were temporary variables you'd want to know what they were temporaries of. For example, tempPhoneNumber or tempAddress. But in this case, they aren't temporaries. They are the thing you are operating on. They represent the node you are trying to match, and the node which you are testing for a match. So you should name them something like nodeToMatch and nodeToTest or matchNode and testNode, or something like that. It's much clearer. In traverse() we see the same problem. You could at least call it nextNode or something like at least slightly more meaningful than temp.