Notes

Outline

Data Structures Topic #3

Today’s Agenda Ordered List ADTs What are they Discuss two different interpretations of an “ordered list” Are manipulated by “position” Use of Data Structures for Ordered Lists arrays (statically & dynamically allocated) linear linked lists

Ordered Lists Now that we have seen a simple list example, and started to examine how we can use different data structures to solve the same problem We will move on to examine an ordered list ADT implemented using a linear linked list, circular linked list, linked list of linked lists, doubly linked lists, etc.

Ordered Lists So, what is an ordered list? Immediately, a sorted list comes to mind But...this isn’t the only definition! think of lists ordered by time, grocery lists? In the order you think about it to-do lists? In priority order... In fact, typically an ordered list is: ordered by “position” whereas a “sorted” list is a “value oriented list”, this is a “position oriented list”

Ordered Lists But, an ordered list has many many different interpretations We will discuss two: absolute lists relative lists Why? Well, there are a variety of interpretations of where data is inserted and whether or not the list has “holes”

Absolute Ordered Lists An absolute ordered list may have holes which means if the first data inserted is at position 12, there are 11 holes (1-11) prior may “replace” data if inserted at the same position (another insert at position 12 could replace the previously inserted data at that position...it never shifts the data) similar to “forms” such as a tax form

Relative Ordered Lists A relative ordered list may not have holes which means if the first data inserted is at position 12, it would actually be inserted at the first position! may “shift” data if inserted at the same position (another insert at position 1 would shift what had been at position 1 -- now to be at position 2) similar to “editors” such as vi

Absolute List Operations For an absolute ordered list, what are the operations? insert, retrieve, remove, create, destroy, display insert, retrieve, and remove would all require the client program to supply a position number notice we are not inserting in sorted order, or retrieving by a “value” instead we insert at an absolute position, retrieve the data at that position, remove data at a given position --- not affecting the rest of the list!

Relative List Operations For a relative ordered list, what are the operations? (the same!) insert, retrieve, remove, create, destroy, display insert, retrieve, and remove would all require the client program to supply a position number instead we insert at a relative position, retrieve the data at that position, remove data at a given position --- this time affecting the rest of the list! A remove at position 1 would require every other piece of data to shift down (logically)

Absolute/Relative Operations Notice what was interesting about the last two slides The operations for a relative and absolute list are the same One exception is that a relative list might also have an “append” function And, an absolute list might restrict insert from “replacing”, and add another function to specifically “replace”

Client Interface Therefore, the client interface for these two interpretations might be identical! so...how would the application writer know which type of list the ADT supports? Documentation! Critical whenever you implement a list What does it mean to insert? Where? What implications does insert and remove have on the rest of the data in the list?

Client Interface class ordered_list { public: ordered_list(); ~ordered_list(); int insert(int, const data & ); int retrieve(int, data &); int display(); int remove(int);

Client Interface With the previous class public section the constructor might be changed to have an integer argument if we were implementing this abstraction with an array the int return types for each member function represent the “success/failure” situation; if more than two states are used (to represent the error-code) ints are a good choice; otherwise, select a bool return type

Data Structures Now let’s examine various data structures for an ordered list and discuss the efficiency tradeoffs, based on: run-time performance memory usage We will examine: statically/dynamically allocated arrays linked lists (linear, circular, doubly)

Data Structures Statically Allocated array... private: data array[SIZE]; int number_of_items; Absolute lists: direct access (insert at pos12 : array[11] = ... remove only alters one element (resetting it?) problem: memory limitations (fixed size) problem: must “guess” at the SIZE at compile time

Data Structures Relative lists: (statically allocated arrays) direct access for retrieve problem: searching! Insert might cause the data to be inserted somewhere other than what the position specifies (i.e., if the position # is greater than the next “open” position) problem: shifting! Remove, insert alters all subsequent data problem: memory limitations (fixed size) problem: must “guess” at the SIZE at compile time

Data Structures Dynamically Allocated array... private: data * array; int number_of_items; int size_of_array; Absolute lists: direct access (insert at pos12 : array[11] = ... remove only alters one element (resetting it?) problem: memory limitations (fixed size)

Data Structures Relative lists: (dynamically allocated arrays) direct access for retrieve problem: searching for the correct position for insert problem: shifting with insert and remove problem: memory limitations (fixed size)

Data Structures What this tells us is that a dynamically allocated list is better than a statically allocated list (one less problem) if the cost of memory allocation for the array is manageable at run-time. may not be reasonable if a large quantity of instances of an ordered_list are formed is not required if the size of the data is known up-front at compile time (and is the same for each instance of the class)

Data Structures We also should have noticed from the previous discussion that... absolute ordered list are well suited for array implementations, since they are truly direct access abstractions relative ordered list are rather poorly suited for arrays, since they require that data be shifted therefore, hopefully the array consists of pointers to our data, so that at least when we shift we are only moving pointers rather than the actual data!!

Data Structures Linear Linked list... private: node * head; node * tail;  //???helpful? Absolute lists:  (a poor choice) holes: how to deal with them? add a position number to the contents of each node....don’t really allocate nodes for each hole!!!! insert, retrieve, removal requires traversal how can a tail pointer help? if data is entered in order by position!

Data Structures Relative lists: (linear linked lists) no holes -- so no extra position needed in each node insert, retrieve, remove requires traversal a tail pointer assists if appending at the end no shifting!! So, while we still have to “search”, and the search may be more expensive than with an array -- this is greatly improved for a relative list, since there is not shifting!!

Data Structures Circular Linked list... private: node * head; node * tail;  //???helpful? There is nothing in an ordered list that will benefit from the last node pointing to the first node A circular linked list will require additional code to manage, with no additional benefits

Data Structures Doubly Linked list... private: (each node has a node * prev) node * head; node * tail;  //???helpful? Again, there is nothing in an ordered list that will benefit from each node having a pointer to the previous node. UNLESS, there were operations to backup or go forward from the “current” position. In this case a doubly linked list would be ideal

Data Structures What about a linked list of arrays where every n items are stored in the first node, the next n items are stored in the second node, etc. This still requires traversal to get to the right node, but then from there direct access can be used to insert, retrieve, remove the data May be the best of both worlds for relative lists, limiting the amount of shifting to “n” items while at the same time keeping the traversal to a manageable level

Data Structures Are there other alternatives? How about an array of linked lists? How about “marking” data in a relative list as “empty” to avoid shifting with an array?! Given the data structures discussed, which is best and why for: absolute ordered list relative ordered list

Next Time... Now that we have applied data structures to an ordered list We will move on to examine stack and queue abstractions Again, we will examine them from the standpoint of arrays, linked list, circular linked list, linked list of linked lists, doubly linked lists, etc. beginning next time!

Data Structures Programming Assignment Discussion