4
\$\begingroup\$

To complement this Java question on palindrome identification, I came up with this C++(14) version:

#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>

namespace detail
{
    template <typename RandomIt, typename BinaryPredicate>
    bool is_palindrome(RandomIt first, RandomIt last, BinaryPredicate pred,
                       std::random_access_iterator_tag)
    {
        return std::equal(first, std::next(first, std::distance(first, last) / 2),
                          std::make_reverse_iterator(last), pred);
    }

    template <typename BidirIt, typename BinaryPredicate>
    bool is_palindrome(BidirIt first, BidirIt last, BinaryPredicate pred,
                       std::bidirectional_iterator_tag)
    {
        if (first == last || first == --last) return true;

        for (; first != last; ++first, --last) {
            if (!pred(*first, *last)) return false;
            if (std::next(first) == last) break;
        }

        return true;
    }
} // namespace detail

template <typename BidirIt, typename BinaryPredicate>
bool is_palindrome(BidirIt first, BidirIt last, BinaryPredicate pred)
{
    return detail::is_palindrome(first, last, pred,
                                 typename std::iterator_traits<BidirIt>::iterator_category {});
}

template <typename BidirIt>
bool is_palindrome(BidirIt first, BidirIt last)
{
    using V = typename std::iterator_traits<BidirIt>::value_type;
    return detail::is_palindrome(first, last,
                                 std::equal_to<V> {},
                                 typename std::iterator_traits<BidirIt>::iterator_category {});
}

template <typename SequenceType, typename BinaryPredicate>
bool is_palindrome(const SequenceType& sequence, BinaryPredicate pred)
{
    return is_palindrome(std::cbegin(sequence), std::cend(sequence), pred);
}

template <typename SequenceType>
bool is_palindrome(const SequenceType& sequence)
{
    return is_palindrome(std::cbegin(sequence), std::cend(sequence));
}

Used as such:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <list>

int main()
{
    std::cout << std::boolalpha;
    std::string str {"abba"};
    std::cout << is_palindrome(str) << std::endl;
    std::list<char> lst {str.cbegin(), str.cend()};
    std::cout << is_palindrome(lst) << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Performance is my primary concern here. Comments and suggested improvements are welcome!

\$\endgroup\$
13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Looks good, can't really see anything to critique here. \$\endgroup\$
    – Yuushi
    Jan 28, 2016 at 2:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why differentiate iterator types? Just stick to the one using bi-directional iterators. The one using random-access-iterators does practically the same thing and is no better. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lingxi
    Jan 28, 2016 at 7:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Lingxi It is better because std::distance is linear time for non std:: random_access_iterator_tag iterators. \$\endgroup\$
    – Daniel
    Jan 28, 2016 at 7:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Daniel You don't actually need to use std::distance(). Do you? \$\endgroup\$
    – Lingxi
    Jan 28, 2016 at 7:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Guess you would be interested in this :-) \$\endgroup\$
    – Lingxi
    Jan 28, 2016 at 8:29

1 Answer 1

2
\$\begingroup\$

Following is my solution. It's much less code. It also handles the case of string literals correctly (e.g., is_palindrome("aba")).

In modern C++ (11 and onward), there is no need to differentiate predicate and non-predicate versions of generic algorithms. The fact that the standard library does overload predicate and non-predicate versions is simply due to historical reasons. See this S.O. topic for details.

#include <functional>
#include <iterator>
#include <utility>

template <typename Iterator, typename Pred = std::equal_to<void>>
bool is_palindrome(Iterator beg, Iterator end, Pred pred = Pred{}) {
  if (beg == end) return true;
  end = std::prev(end);
  if (beg == end) return true;
  do {
    if (! pred(*beg++, *end--)) return false;
  }
  while (beg != end && beg != std::next(end));
  return true;
}

template <typename T, typename Pred = std::equal_to<void>>
bool is_palindrome(const T& x, Pred pred = Pred{}) {
  return is_palindrome(std::begin(x), std::end(x), std::move(pred));
}

template <std::size_t n, typename Pred = std::equal_to<void>>
bool is_palindrome(const char (&x)[n], Pred pred = Pred{}) {
  return is_palindrome(x, x + n - 1, std::move(pred));
}
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your proposed solution for the string literal case will cause incorrect results for other array types (without the null terminator). IMHO, the user should be aware of the nature of C-strings and use the iterator-based versions. But this type of scenario is probably why the standard library doesn't include range-based algorithms. \$\endgroup\$
    – Daniel
    Jan 28, 2016 at 8:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 for the default predicate suggestion. But I don't agree with your other changes for the reasons given in the question comments. It may be a small performance difference, but it will be there. And I've seen algorithm implementations of the standard library which differentiate on much less obvious cases (e.g. std::reverse in libcpp). \$\endgroup\$
    – Daniel
    Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Daniel Agreed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lingxi
    Jan 28, 2016 at 8:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.