| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 3757 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3647 |
| 3 | Benq | 3581 |
| 4 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
| 5 | Geothermal | 3569 |
| 5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
| 7 | Radewoosh | 3509 |
| 8 | ecnerwala | 3486 |
| 9 | jqdai0815 | 3474 |
| 10 | gyh20 | 3447 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | maomao90 | 171 |
| 2 | awoo | 165 |
| 3 | adamant | 163 |
| 4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
| 5 | maroonrk | 155 |
| 6 | nor | 154 |
| 7 | -is-this-fft- | 152 |
| 8 | Petr | 147 |
| 9 | orz | 146 |
| 10 | pajenegod | 145 |
As far as I know stack.push() have a O(1) time complexity but is it actually correct if I use a stack of string.
stack<string> stringStack;
string inputString;
while(cin >> inputString) {
stringStack.push(inputString); // what is the time complexity of this line
}
It's constant, O(1).
The operation involves updating the reference or pointer to the new element, and this process is independent of the size of the string.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. A copy of
inputStringis added to the stack; creating a copy takes time in $$$O(\text{len(inputString)})$$$.https://cplusplus.com/reference/stack/stack/push/
"The content of this new element is initialized to a copy of val."
I think you're right, a good solution would be a stack of pointers of references to strings, so the time to push them is constant as they're basically an adress
I appreciate your response, I'll make sure to fix my mistake right away :)
There is second overload which moves instead of copying https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/stack/push