Singly linked-list class with constructors

Question

What I want to do is have a singly linked-list class with a default constructor, copy constructor, copy assignment constructer, and destructor. I barely started it because I am confused if a Node with int data and next pointer should be a separate class or the way I did it.

class list {
public:
    list(): next(NULL) {} // default constructor                                   
    list(const list &t){} // copy constructor                                     
    list&   operator= (const list &t) // assignment operator                        
    ~list(){} //destructor                                                        
    void print()    

private:
    struct Node {
        data x;
        Node *next;
    }_list;
}

What confuses you exactly ? For the moment your code seems correct. — Synxis
– Synxis, Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 21:24

Luchian Grigore · Accepted Answer · 2012-10-24 22:12:40Z

2

Well, logically, a node is a separate structure (class), but in common implementations, the list itself is represented by the first node.

So, basically, you wouldn't have a list class (and if you did, it'd just hold a pointer to the first node + the constructors/assignment operator/destructor):

struct Node {
  data x;
  Node *next;
};

class list{
 public:
  list(): next(NULL) {} // default constructor                                   
  list(const list &t){} // copy constructor                                     
  list& operator= (const list &t) // assignment operator                        
  ~list(){} //destructor                                                        
  void print() ;

 private:
  Node* first;
}

edited Oct 24, 2012 at 22:12

answered Oct 24, 2012 at 21:25

Luchian Grigore

260k68 gold badges465 silver badges634 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

user1610015 · Accepted Answer · 2012-10-24 21:27:23Z

0

If by "separate class" you mean not nested within list, then no, it's better for it to be nested (and private). But that doesn't mean you can't give it constructors, destructors, operators, methods, etc. (i.e. turn it into a full-blown class).

answered Oct 24, 2012 at 21:27

user1610015

6,6982 gold badges17 silver badges19 bronze badges

Comments

Olaf Dietsche · Accepted Answer · 2012-10-24 21:30:11Z

0

This is perfectly valid. If you use Node only in list, it is just an implementation detail. Although, if you need Node outside of list, e.g. in an iterator class, then you need to implement it outside of list.

answered Oct 24, 2012 at 21:30

Olaf Dietsche

74.4k9 gold badges113 silver badges214 bronze badges

Comments

Derek W · Accepted Answer · 2012-10-25 02:06:35Z

0

Having an inner class is fine, however, if/when you implement methods like a constructor for the inner class, then the scope resolution operator needs to include the outer and inner class names. For example,

List::Node::Node(const DataType& nodeData, Node* nextPtr) {stuff}

By declaring the Node class in the private section of the List class you are providing encapsulation against external access, but still letting the List class have access.

edited Oct 25, 2012 at 2:06

answered Oct 25, 2012 at 0:14

Derek W

10.1k6 gold badges62 silver badges69 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Singly linked-list class with constructors

4 Answers 4

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

4 Answers 4

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related