Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I have seen many implementations of linked list adding at head then updating the head reference or not modifying the head reference and adding at the tail updating it each time. Is there an obvious benefit of one vs the other? Which one is the preferred way of implementation?
There’s no benefit at all. In fact, the only thing that makes the head the head and the tail the tail is that we call one the head and one the tail. You could replace head with tail, and tail with head, and you’d have the same exact list, except it would be “backwards.” (This does assume a doubly linked list…)
It’s kinda like matter and antimatter…