TL;DR

On with TASK #2 from The Weekly Challenge #129. Enjoy!

# The challenge

Note: I’m removing the hints on how to operate inside the examples.

You are given two linked list having single digit positive numbers.

Write a script to add the two linked list and create a new linked representing the sum of the two linked list numbers. The two linked lists may or may not have the same number of elements.

HINT: Just a suggestion, feel free to come up with your own unique way to deal with the task. I am expecting a class representing linked list. It should have methods to create a linked list given list of single digit positive numbers and a method to add new member. Also have a method that takes 2 linked list objects and returns a new linked list. Finally a method to print the linked list object in a user friendly format.

Example 1:

Input: L1 = 1 -> 2 -> 3
L2 = 3 -> 2 -> 1
Output: 4 -> 4 -> 4


Example 2:

Input: L1 = 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5
L2 =           6 -> 5 -> 5
Output:     1 -> 3 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0


# The questions

I wonder if my continuous nit-picking and writing questions on these challenges played a part in this one particularly, because manwar is being extremely detailed - to the point that there are some expectations on the implementation. I hope I didn’t too much upsetting 😅

On a more serious business note, I’d ask if double-linked lists would qualify for this challenge. As some operations go in one directions, while others go the other one, it would be handy to use them. Anyway we’ll assume a strict interpretation here, and rely on single-linked lists.

Then I’ll make the assumption that the inputs might also contain 0 in addition to positive single-digit numbers. This I think was some kind of typo, although strictly speaking I’ll just avoid doing the input checking for this one, so it technically works for strictly adherent linked lists.

# The solution

This challenge really struck a cord. Linked lists throw me back to my first course in Computer Science back to around 1992, which is almost 30 years ago. It’s as if someone in 1992 were talking to me about something happening in 1963. Wow.

Having gone back that much in time, the execution is… adherent to manwar’s wishes and requirements, with really little added.

In true “being fair” with may favourite languages, Perl goes first in this case.

## Perl

So… object orientation. In Perl. If it only there were something cool in CORE… well, while we wait for it (I so want it) let’s stick with the minimialistic approach that is in core.

#!/usr/bin/env perl
use v5.24;
use warnings;
use experimental 'signatures';
no warnings 'experimental::signatures';
use Test::More;
use List::Util 'max';

for my $test ( [ '1 -> 2 -> 3', '3 -> 2 -> 1', '4 -> 4 -> 4', ], [ '1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5', '6 -> 5 -> 5', '1 -> 3 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0', ], [ '9 -> 8 -> 7', '1 -> 3', '1 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0', ], ) { my ($tl1, $tl2,$texp) = $test->@*; my$len = max map { length $_ }$test->@*;
my $l1 = LinkedList->create(split m{\s*->\s*}mxs,$tl1);
is $l1->stringify,$tl1, sprintf "  (%${len}s)",$tl1;
my $l2 = LinkedList->create(split m{\s*->\s*}mxs,$tl2);
is $l2->stringify,$tl2, sprintf "+ (%${len}s)",$tl2;
my $sum =$l1 + $l2; is$sum->stringify, $texp, sprintf "= (%${len}s)", $texp; } done_testing(); package LinkedListItem; use experimental 'signatures'; no warnings 'experimental::signatures'; sub label ($s, @n) { $s->{label} =$n[0] if @n > 0; $s->{label} } sub new ($p, %s) { bless \%s, $p } sub succ ($s, @n) { $s->{succ} =$n[0] if @n > 0; $s->{succ} } package LinkedList; use experimental 'signatures'; no warnings 'experimental::signatures'; use overload '+' => \&add; sub create ($p, @labels) {
my $l =$p->new;
$l->insert($_) for CORE::reverse(@labels);
return $l; } sub for_each ($self, $cb) { my$p = $self->{head}; while (defined$p) {
$cb->(local$_ = $p->label);$p = $p->succ; } return$self;
}
sub insert ($self,$l) {
$self->{head} = LinkedListItem->new(label =>$l, succ => $self->{head}); return$self;
}
sub new ($p, %s) { bless {head => undef, %s},$p }
sub stringify ($s) { my @labels;$s->for_each(sub {push @labels, $_}); return join ' -> ', @labels; } sub reverse ($self) {
my $r = LinkedList->new;$self->for_each(sub {$r->insert($_)});
return $r; } sub add ($s, $t, @ignore) { my$ps = $s->reverse->{head}; my$pt = $t->reverse->{head}; my$r = LinkedList->new;
my $carry = 0; while (defined($ps) || defined($pt) ||$carry) {
my ($vs,$vt) = map {
(my $v,$_) = $_ ? ($_->label, $_->succ) : (0, undef);$v;
} ($ps,$pt);
my $v =$vs + $vt +$carry;
($v,$carry) = $v > 9 ? ($v - 10, 1) : ($v, 0);$r->insert($v); } return$r;
}


As anticipated, a pretty much boring implementation. It’s probably worth noting that operator + is overloaded to call the add method. This explaines why the method itself contains a catchall parameter @ignore: the overloading passes one more parameter!

## Raku

Raku implementation is a bit cleaner and declarative, but otherwise it’s a direct translation. I feel like I really missed more idiomatic ways of expressing these classes.

#!/usr/bin/env raku
use v6;
use Test;

has $.label is required; has$.succ is rw = Nil;
}

has $.head is rw = Nil; method create (::?CLASS:U$class: *@labels) {
my $l =$class.new;
@labels.reverse.map: {$l.insert($^label)};
return $l; } method for-each (&cb) { my$p = self.head;
while $p { &cb($p.label);
$p =$p.succ;
}
return self;
}

method insert ($l) { self.head = LinkedListItem.new(label =>$l, succ => self.head);
}

method Str () {
my @labels;
self.for-each({@labels.push: $^label}); return @labels.join(' -> '); } method reverse () { my$r = LinkedList.new;
self.for-each({$r.insert($^label)});
return $r; } method add ($t) {
my $ps = self.reverse.head; my$pt = $t.reverse.head; my$r = LinkedList.new;
my $carry = 0; while defined($ps) || defined($pt) ||$carry {
my ($vs,$vt) = ($ps,$pt).map: -> $n is rw { (my$v, $n) =$n ?? ($n.label,$n.succ) !! (0, Nil);
$v; }; # dirty dirty dirty my$v = $vs +$vt + $carry; ($v, $carry) =$v > 9 ?? ($v - 10, 1) !! ($v, 0);
$r.insert($v);
}
return $r; } } multi sub infix:<+> (LinkedList:D$s, LinkedList:D $t) {$s.add($t) } sub MAIN () { my @tests = [ '1 -> 2 -> 3', '3 -> 2 -> 1', '4 -> 4 -> 4', ], [ '1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5', '6 -> 5 -> 5', '1 -> 3 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0', ], [ '9 -> 8 -> 7', '1 -> 3', '1 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0', ]; for @tests ->$test {
my ($tl1,$tl2, $texp) = @$test;
my $len =$test.map({$^s.chars}).max; my$l1 = LinkedList.create($tl1.split: /\s* '->' \s*/); is$l1.Str, $tl1, sprintf(" (%{$len}s)", $tl1); my$l2 = LinkedList.create($tl2.split: /\s* '->' \s*/); is$l2.Str, $tl2, sprintf("+ (%{$len}s)", $tl2); my$sum = $l1 +$l2;
is $sum.Str,$texp, sprintf("= (%{$len}s)",$texp);
}
done-testing;
}


Also in this case we can find the overloading of the + operator, although in a much more refined way. This is so cool. Or Cool?

# Conclusion

Both programs give the same output as below:

ok 1 -   (1 -> 2 -> 3)
ok 2 - + (3 -> 2 -> 1)
ok 3 - = (4 -> 4 -> 4)
ok 4 -   (1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5)
ok 5 - + (          6 -> 5 -> 5)
ok 6 - = (1 -> 3 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0)
ok 7 -   (     9 -> 8 -> 7)
ok 8 - + (          1 -> 3)
ok 9 - = (1 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0)
1..9


which is what we were expecting!

What to say more? Thanks to manwar for another week of fun, and stay safe everyone!