0% completed
Reverse Level Order Traversal (easy)
.....
.....
.....
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Reverse Level Order Traversal Testcases seems wrong. My code unchanged from Level Order Traversal works.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
instead of:
result.push_back(currentLevel);
use:
result.insert(result.begin(), currentLevel);
It's a simple change that works. it might incur more moves in the container though.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
In the problem function returns vector<vector<int>>
In the solution it returns deque<vector<int>>
This is a huge difference. Please update!
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
This is a little confusing since you expect that what's in the boiler plate here is suppose to be in the solution
Boiler Plate for Question
class Solution: def traverse(self, root): deq = deque() # TODO: Write your code here result = [list(sublist) for sublist in deq] return result
Solution - FOLLOWS SIMILAR FORMAT AS 'LEVEL ORDER TRAVERSAL' QUESTION
def traverse(root): result = deque() if root is None: return result queue = deque() queue.append(root) while queue: levelSize = len(queue) currentLevel = [] for _ in range(levelSize): currentNode = queue.popleft() # add the node to the current level currentLevel.append(currentNode.val) # insert the children of current node in the que
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
Instead of LinkedList to hold the level arrays and adding at the beginning of the LinkedList every time, a Stack<List<Integer>> is another option we could try. It worked for me.
Anonymous
· 4 years ago
Instead of appending list at the beginning to reverse, why not use Stack instead?
Reading Progress
0%