Design-2 Submission

[tanyasreenagesh]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

1. Correctness: Both implementations are correct and solve the respective problems as intended.
2. Time Complexity: The student correctly identifies the time complexity for both solutions. For the queue implementation, the operations are amortized O(1), and for the hash map, the operations are O(1) on average.
3. Space Complexity: The space complexity is correctly identified as O(n) for both solutions.
4. Code Quality: The code is well-structured and readable. The use of comments and clear variable names enhances understanding. The dummy node in the hash map implementation is a good touch to handle edge cases.
5. Efficiency: Both implementations are efficient. For the queue, the student correctly transfers elements from the inStack to the outStack only when necessary, optimizing the operations. For the hash map, the use of a large primary storage size ensures that linked lists remain short, maintaining O(1) average time complexity.

Areas for Improvement:

• In the QueueWithStacks.py file, the condition if self.outStack == [] can be simplified to if not self.outStack for better readability.
• In the HashSet.py file, the comment about the dummy node being important could be expanded to explain why it simplifies the traverse and remove operations.

Strengths:

• Clear and concise implementation.
• Good use of comments to explain the logic.
• Correct handling of edge cases, especially in the hash map implementation.