I'm writing abstract data type of priority queue as a task for an university, which others are going to use. I have a function in my class dequeue, which deletes the first element in the queue and returns the data of this element. However when I try to delete an element from an empty queue, the program crashes. What should I do here ?
Here's the code if it helps:
#ifndef PRIORITYQUEUE_H
#define PRIORITYQUEUE_H
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const int max_queue_items = 1000;
template<class T>
struct node{
T data;
int priority;
node *next;
};
template<class T>
class PriorityQueue
{
public:
/*
Constructor that creates an empty queue.
*/
PriorityQueue(){
head = NULL;
size = 0;
}
/*
Adds an element to the queue.
Params:
data - data of the element
priority - priority of the element
*/
bool is_empty(){
if (size == 0){
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool is_full(){
if (size == max_queue_items){
return true;
}
return false;
}
/*
Adds an element to thq queue.
It gets inserted before the first element with
lower priority.
*/
void enqueue(T data, int priority){
node<T> * previous = NULL;
node<T> * now = head;
while (now != NULL && now->priority >= priority){
previous = now;
now = now->next;
}
node<T> * new_element = new node<T>;
new_element->data = data;
new_element->priority = priority;
new_element->next = now;
if (previous == NULL){
head = new_element;
} else {
previous->next = new_element;
}
size++;
}
/*
Removes the first element in the queue
*/
T dequeue(){
T data;
if (!is_empty()){
node<T> * now = head;
data = now->data;
head = head->next;
delete now;
size--;
}
return data;
}
/*
Returns the priority of the first element.
It's always the highest priority in the queue.
*/
int get_first_priority(){
return head->priority;
}
/*
Returns the data of the first element in the queue.
*/
T get_first_value(){
if (is_empty())
throw 0;
return head->data;
}
/*
Returns the number of elements in the queue.
*/
int get_size(){
return size;
}
/*
Deletes the whole queue from the memory.
*/
void flush(){
node<T> * now;
while (head != NULL){
now = head;
head = head->next;
delete now;
size--;
}
}
/*
Prints the whole queue following this format:
data(priority)
*/
void print(){
node<T> * now = head;
while (now != NULL){
cout << now->data << "(" << now->priority << ")" << endl;
now = now->next;
}
}
private:
node<T> * head; // Pointer to the head of the queue
int size; // Number of elements in the queue
};
#endif // PRIORITYQUEUE_H
This may or may not be the source of your problem, but I would definitely consider it an issue. In function dequeue() you are potentially returning an uninitialized variable (if T is not a class type) when is_empty() returns true:
T dequeue()
{
T data; // Uninitialized if T is not a class type
if (!is_empty())
{
node<T> * now = head;
//--------------------------------------------------------------
// This initialization is skipped when `is_empty()` returns true
data = now->data;
//--------------------------------------------------------------
head = head->next;
delete now;
size--;
}
return data;
}
Depending on what you do with the value returned by this function and on the type of T, your program might have Undefined Behavior (I can imagine T being a pointer type that you later dereference).
You may want to change the first line of the function into:
T data = T();
Which enforces value-initialization of your data object. If T is a class type, the default constructor will be invoked. Otherwise, data will be zero-initialized.
The function which calls dequeue() should then check the returned value before using it (or better, call is_empty() on the queue to check it is not empty before trying to pop a value from it).
You may even consider throwing an exception when dequeue() is invoked and the queue is empty:
T dequeue()
{
if (is_empty())
{
// Requires including the <stdexcept> standard header
throw std::logic_error("Queue is empty");
}
node<T> * now = head;
T data = now->data;
head = head->next;
delete now;
size--;
return data;
}
Clients are now responsible for making sure that dequeue() is never called on an empty queue (or they shall wrap calls to dequeue() into a try/catch block to handle the possibly thrown exception.
Another possibility is returning a bool to your client indicating whether the value was successfully popped, possibly assigning the popped element to an argument passed by reference:
bool dequeue(T& data)
{
if (is_empty())
{
return false;
}
node<T> * now = head;
data = now->data;
head = head->next;
delete now;
size--;
return true;
}
This way, the client is responsible for checking the result of the function. If the function returns false, the data variable will be initialized to whatever the client initialized it to. Responsibilities for handling error situations is again transferred to the client.
I think there are some issues.
First and most important, there is no destructor for the class. And if not all elements are dequeued in your program there will be a memory leak. Write the destructor or use smart pointer instead of the raw one.
Second, as #Andy Prowl(btw who knows how to # people in post like twitter?) said, uninitialized local variable should be considered. And T data = T() works well both for built-in and custom types.
Third, I think there is a capacity restriction max_queue_items for the queue but there is no corresponding code for the enqueue part.
Even though, I don't think all these flaws could cause a serious crash in normal case. Maybe the problem occurs in your code invokes the class and the incorrect processing for uninitalized return value leads to a crash.
The only potential problem I see in you dequeue is that you are creating a temporary variable of the unknown type T. If you are storing data of a type with no default constructor in your priority queue, you are going to have a problem when your dequeue calls and tries to default construct that variable.
If this is the case, I would suggest that you re-work your priority queue to hold pointers to the template type rather than the data itself.
Related
can someone run this code and tell me why the node in insert keeps overwriting?
#ifndef LinkedList_hpp
#define LinkedList_hpp
#include <stdio.h>
#include <utility>
template<class T>class LinkedList{
public:
LinkedList(){
head = nullptr;
tail = nullptr;
size = 0;
}
//void insert(T val);
class Node{
public:
Node* next;
T* value;
Node* prev;
Node(T* value){
this->value = value;
}
Node(){
}
Node(T* value,Node* prev, Node* next){
this->value = value;
this->next = next;
this->prev = prev;
}
Node* operator=(const Node& node){
this->value = node.value;
this->prev = node.prev;
this->next = node.next;
return *this;
}
};
public:
Node* head;
Node* tail;
int size;
void insert(T val){
at this line, if the previous head was 10, the current val, 40, overwrites the old head value and inserts a new node with val 40
Node* temp = new Node(&val);
if(head==nullptr){
head = temp;
tail = temp;
}else{
temp->next = head;
head->prev = temp;
head = temp;
}
size++;
}
#endif
#include <iostream>
#include "LinkedList.hpp"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
// LinkedList<int> t;
int h = 7;
int j = 10;
int k = 40;
LinkedList<int>* list1 = new LinkedList<int>();
list1->insert(h);
list1->insert(j);
list1->insert(k);
return 0;
}
every time insert is called and a new node is constructed, it overwrites the old value and everything becomes the current Val
void insert(T val){
val is a parameter to this function. This object, this val, only exists until this function returns. At which point it gets destroyed, like everything else declared in non-static scope inside the function. That's how C++ works. Once insert() returns, this val no more. It ceases to exist. It goes to meet its maker. It becomes an ex-object, that no longer exist and is completely in the past.
Your insert() function does the following:
Node* temp = new Node(&val);
You're passing a pointer to this val parameter to Node's constructor, and Node then saves the pointer to a parameter to insert(), as its own class member.
That's great, but as soon as insert() returns, the saved pointer in the new-ed Node becomes a pointer to a destroyed object, and dereferencing this pointer becomes undefined behavior.
You are then, later, attempting to dereference the original pointer, which is no longer pointing to a valid object.
This explains the observed undefined behavior in your code.
The bottom line is that your classes and templates's design is fundamentally flawed. There is no apparent purpose for Node to use a pointer. Node should simply store T as its own class member, as the value, instead of value being a pointer to some other T which exists somewhere, and can get destroyed at any time, which is not under Node's control.
Another problem in the shown code is that two ofNode's constructor fail to initialize the next and prev pointers to NULL. This will also lead to undefined behavior.
void insert(T val)
takes its arguments by value, so val is a local copy rather than the original.
Node* temp = new Node(&val);
stores a pointer to this local copy. The copy goes out of scope, so what you're looking at after insert exits is a ghost existing in memory that is no longer valid. In this case the ghost appears to always hold the last value set.
Solution:
Smart way: Store Node::value directly instead of as a pointer that you need to keep alive along with the node. Much less memory management this way.
T* value;
becomes
T value;
and
Node(T* value){
this->value = value;
}
becomes
Node(T value){
this->value = value;
}
The other uses of value must be updated accordingly. In general, new is such a headache that it should be used sparingly.
Stupid way: Pass by reference
void insert(T &val)
so that the pointer points at the longer lived original.
This code is copied from the c++ primer plus. I think some
steps in the dequeue function is unnecessary. But the book
say it is important.I don't understand. I hope some one can show me more detail explanation.Here is the definition of the queue.
typedef unsigned long Item;
class Queue
{
private:
struct Node{ Item item; struct Node * next; };
enum{ Q_SIZE = 10 };
Node * front;
Node * rear;
int items; // the number of item in the queue
const int qsize;
Queue(const Queue & q) :qsize(0){};
Queue & operator=(const Queue & q){ return *this; }
Queue & operator=(const Queue & q){ return *this; }
public:
Queue(int qs = Q_SIZE);
~Queue();
bool isempty()const;
bool isfull()const;
int queuecount()const;
bool enqueue(const Item & item);
bool dequeue(Item & item);
};
bool Queue::dequeue(Item & item)
{
if (isempty())
return false;
item = front->item;
Node * temp;
temp=front; // is it necessary
front = front->next;
items--;
delete temp;
if (items == 0)
rear = NULL; //why it is not front=rear=Null ;
return true;
}
The nodes in this queue are stored as pointers. To actually create a node some code like Node* tmp = new Node() is probably somewhere in the enqueue-Function.
With front = front->next; the pointer to the first element gets moved to the next element in the queue. But what about the previous front-node? By moving the pointer we "forget" its adress, but we don't delete the object or free the memory. We have to use delete to do so, which is why the adress is temporarily stored to call the delete. Not deleting it would cause a memory leak here.
About your second question: The frontpointer has already been moved to front->next. What could that be if there was only one element inside the queue? Probably NULL, which should be ensured by the enqueue-function. ("Note: If you are managing this code, it is a good idea to replace NULL with nullptr).
The only variable that didn't get updated yet is rear.
temp = front;
saves a pointer to the front element so it can be deleted after front has been modified.
If the queue is empty, front = front->next; has already set front to null, so there's no need to do it again.
I want to implement a circularly double linked list. this list just includes these chars in a passed in string object
Here is my code, but I always get seg fault. i use a dummy head for this list
#ifndef MY_LIST_H
#define MY_LIST_H
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
/**------ -----------------
* dummy |->|pred|value|next|
* ------ -----------------
* */
struct Node
{
char value;
Node *next;
Node *pred;
Node( char value): value(value), next(0), pred(0){};
};
class MyList
{
private:
Node* head;
unsigned int count; // count number of node
public:
// default constructor
MyList(): count(0)
{
head = new Node('P');
}
//Constructs a list from a passed-in string object,
MyList(const string& str): count(0)
{
Node *cur = head;
if(count == 0)
{
head-> pred = head;
head-> next = head;
}
else
{
for( unsigned i =0; i< str.length(); ++i)
{
cur->next = new Node(str.at(i));
Node *temp = cur->next;
temp-> pred = cur;
++count;
if(count == str.length())
{
cur->next->next = head;
head-> pred = cur-> next->pred;
}
}
}
}
void print() const
{
Node *cur = head->next;
while( cur != head)
{
cout << cur-> value;
cur = cur-> next;
}
}
};
#endif
You don't seem to understand constructors very well.
Only one constructor is called when you initialize your class. You can call a constructor from another constructor if you want, but that's not by defaut: Can I call a constructor from another constructor (do constructor chaining) in C++?.
In your instance, your second constructor should probably be something like this: MyList(const string& str): MyList() { ... }
That way head wil be properly initalized, and you won't create a segfault.
Additionnally you could run your code in debug mode, in the debugger, and find out the line your code crashes. using namespace ...; in a header is also a bad practice, as you don't know where your header will be included.
It's hard to say exactly what's happening without see how you're using these classes but your MyList constructor overloaded on string is broken right off the bat. It sets count to 0 so you know it will always enter the if clause and never the else.
MyList(const string& str): count(0)
{
Node *cur = head;
if(count == 0)
{
head-> pred = head;
head-> next = head;
}
else . . .
inside the if statement, it tries to dereference head which has never been assigned a value. You do set it in the default constructor but that one also doesn't seem to do anything else.
The purpose of a constructor is to construct a valid object from scratch. Sometimes one constructor overload might delegate to another to avoid repeated code but I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.
Assuming the second constructor was meant to actually be a helper method, well it still doesn't work because count never goes above zero (except in the else clause but you can't get there with count==0).
I'll admit I didn't look very carefully but I'm guessing that if execution this far:
cur->next->next
is not always going to be set when you try to access it. if cur->next is nullptr then your program dies.
I'm reading lines from a file and storing them into linked list.
void add(llist *list, somevalue) {
Node *newnode = (Node *) malloc(sizeof(Node));
newnode->value = somevalue;
newnode->next = list->head;
list->head = newnode;
}
and I call this function from an initialize function which opens the file and reads lines from the file.
void init() {
llist *list = (llist *) malloc(sizeof(llist));
//
//bunch of file i/o codes
//
while (read file until it returns NULL) {
add(list, line);
//if I try to print the values of the list here it works.
}
//Outside the loop, the head is back to NULL
}
And another problem that I realized is the values get concatenated every time I try to print the value. That is to say, the output would be:
First Loop: Tony
Second Loop: Peter
TonyPeter
Third Loop: Mir
PeterMir
TonyPeterMir
How do I fix it so the add function permanently adds the node to the linked list?
Why would the values be jumbled up like that?
----EDITED----
The list is a global variable, and here are some more snippets from the init function. This is the while loop with the problem:
//open file
//initialize & declare pointers
while (1) {
for (i = 0; i < max; i++) {
value[i] = '\0';
}
if (!(fgets(value,max,f))) {
//segfaults if I try to print out the list inside this block.
break;
}
add(list, value);
//the values are well separated in this statement
printf("id is %s\n", list->head->value);
//This print list works, but works weird as shown above.
print_list(list);
}
fclose(f);
//This print list doesn't work, the list is NULL
print_list(list);
And this is the print list function:
void print_users(llist *list) {
ListNode *e;
if (list->head == NULL) {
printf("NO USERS\r\n");
return;
}
e = list->head;
while (e != NULL) {
puts(e->id);
e = e->next;
}
}
So I don't have a good grasp at all on what you're exactly trying to do here, so we can only do but so much. You may consider posting a MCVE. However, I may be able to give you some pointers on building a linked list. I directly copied your add function into a linked list class that I just hurriedly built, and it worked fine, so there may be something else in your llist class that is causing the issue, or it could be something else in your code. The class and a brief description of the class are listed below.
basic node class
Note: I used templates, but you could just as easily remove the template statements and replace T with any type.
template<typename T>
class node {
private:
T data;
node* next;
public:
// The C++11 rule of 5
// Default Constructor
node(T value = T(), node* nxt = nullptr) : data(value), next(nxt) { }
// Copy Constructor
node(const node<T>& src) : data(src.data), next(src.next) { }
// Move Constructor
node(node<T>&& src) : data(src.data), next(src.next) {
src.data = T();
src.next = nullptr;
}
// Copy Assignment Operator
node<T>& operator=(const node<T>& src) {
this->data = src.data;
this->next = src.next;
return(*this);
}
// Move Assignment Operator
node<T>& operator=(node<T>&& src) {
this->data = src.data;
this->next = src.next;
src.data = T();
src.next = nullptr;
}
// Destructor
~node() {};
// Some functions to help with encapsulation
void set_next(node* nxt) {
this->next = nxt;
}
void set_data(T value) {
this->data = value;
}
node* get_next() {
return(this->next);
}
T& get_data() {
return(data);
}
};
linked list class body
Since you're using dynamic memory, you need to make sure you adhere to the rule of 3 or 5 depending on whether or not you're using C++11.
template<typename T>
class llist {
private:
node<T>* head;
public:
llist();
llist(const llist& src);
llist(llist&& src);
llist(~llist);
llist& operator=(const llist& src);
llist& operator=(llist&& src);
void push();
void insert();
};
default constructor
Nothing fancy here.
template<typename T>
llist<T>::llist() : head(nullptr) { }
copy constructor
Since you're using dynamic memory this is crucial
template<typename T>
llist<T>::llist(const llist& src) {
node<T>* tmp = src.head;
while(tmp) {
this->push(tmp->get_data());
}
}
move constructor
template<typename T>
llist<T>::llist(llist&& src) {
// delete current nodes
node<T>* tmp = this->head;
while(tmp) {
tmp = head->get_next();
delete head;
head = tmp;
}
// steal the sources list
this->head = src.head;
src.head = nullptr;
}
destructor
template<typename T>
llist<T>::~llist() {
node<T>* tmp = this->head;
while(tmp) {
tmp = head->get_next();
delete head;
head = tmp;
}
}
copy assignment operator
template<typename T>
llist& llist<T>::operator=(const llist<T>& src) {
node<T>* tmp = src.head;
while(tmp) {
this->push(tmp->get_data());
}
return(*this);
}
move assignment operator
template<typename T>
llist& llist<T>::operator=(llist<T>&& src) {
node<T>* tmp = this->head;
while(tmp) {
tmp = head->get_next();
delete head;
head = tmp;
}
this->head = src.head;
src.head = nullptr;
return(*this);
}
push member
this is essentially opposite of your add member.
template<typename T>
void llist<T>push(T data) {
node<T>* new_node = new node<T>(data);
if(this->head) {
node<T>* tmp = this->head;
while(tmp->get_next()) {
tmp = tmp->get_next();
}
tmp->set_next(new_node);
} else {
this->head = new_node;
}
}
insert member
This is essentially your add member.
template<typename T>
void llist<T>insert(T data) {
node<T>* new_node = new node<T>(data, this->head);
this->head = new_node;
}
I don't know if this will help, and you probably already have and know most of this, but I hope it helps.
In this code, it would appear that you attempted to 'malloc' space for a "llist" user defined object.
void init() {
llist *list = (llist *) malloc(sizeof(llist));
//
//bunch of file i/o codes
//
while (read file until it returns NULL) {
add(list, line);
//if I try to print the values of the list here it works.
}
//Outside the loop, the head is back to NULL
}
First, you tagged this as C++. In C++, you simply must use new and delete. The C++ compiler does not associate "malloc" with the ctor / dtor of your user created object called "llist". And I assure you that you really do want to create these two methods, even when each are simple. Really.
On the other hand, the C++ compiler does provide New and Delete, and will automatically invoke the ctor and dtor when appropriate for both dynamic variables (in heap), and automatic variables (on stack). The compiler will not support this with malloc.
Second, your function init() does not return or otherwise deliver the value of the automatic variable you named "list" to any other scope. (Typically, a list lifetime exceeds the life of any function that uses or creates it.)
So your object "list" only exists within the scope of the function init(), within the lifetime of init(). Not very useful.
So the handle to the list of 'malloc'ed things is lost, no longer accessible to anything else. After init(), where did you plan for the listHead to reside?
Even if you used new (and delete) the code still does not deliver the listHead anywhere.
To further your program, you need perhaps 1 of 2 things:
1) a return (from the function) of the "list" handle (I've been calling it "listHead" as you intended, right?)
llist* init() {
llist *listHead = ...
return(listHead);
}
OR
2) a parameter reference which your init function changes. This places the list head outside of init().
void init( llist** listHead) {
llist *list = ...
*listHead = list;
}
You might look into, and take hints from std::list, which has 40+ methods, though you might only need 10. For the methods you plan to implement, you should strive to conform to and use similar names and parameters.
Perhaps you meant to use a class data attribute with the label list (it is quite difficult to imagine this from what you provided). In this case, you should distinguish data attributes names to help you remember what it is, and that it has a different scope. For instance, I would use m_listHead. The prefix m_ (or often, simply the one char prefix '_') simply indicates to the reader that this symbol is a data attribute of a class. This idea is a common c++ idiom, and not enforced by the compiler, but is often part of a coding-standard.
Good luck.
I've just implemented the Linked List. It works perfectly fine but even tough I've seen notation I am unable to create working destructor on Node, that's why it's unimplemented here in code.
I need to implement working destructor on node
Destructor of List but this one is simple I will just use the destructor from Node class(but I need this one).
Make the List friendly to Node so I will not have to use getNext(), but I think I can
handle it myself(not sure how, but I'll find out).
Please look at the code it is perfectly fine, just will work if you copy it.
#include <cstdio>
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
using namespace std;
class Node {
public:
Node(Node* next, int wrt) {
this->next = next;
this->wrt = wrt;
}
Node(const Node& obiekt) {
this->wrt = obiekt.wrt;
this->next = obiekt.next;
}
~Node() {}
void show() {
cout << this->wrt << endl;
}
int getWrt(){
return this->wrt;
}
Node* getNext(){
return this->next;
}
void setNext(Node* node){
this->next = node;
}
private:
Node* next;
int wrt;
};
class List{
public:
List(int wrt){
this->root = new Node(NULL, wrt);
}
List(const List& obiekt){
memcpy(&this->root,&obiekt.root,sizeof(int));
Node* el = obiekt.root->getNext();
Node* curr = this->root;
Node* next;
while(el != NULL){
memcpy(&next,&el,sizeof(int));
curr->setNext(next);
curr = next;
next = curr->getNext();
el = el->getNext();
/* curr->show();
next->show();
el->show(); */
}
}
void add(int wrt){
Node* node = new Node(NULL, wrt);
Node* el = this->root;
while(el->getNext() != NULL){
//el->show();
el = el->getNext();
}
el->setNext(node);
}
void remove(int index){
Node* el = this->root;
if(index == 0){
//deleting old one
this->root = this->root->getNext();
}
else{
int i = 0;
while(el != NULL && i < index - 1){
// el->show();
el = el->getNext();
i++;
}
if(el!=NULL){
Node* toRem = el->getNext();
Node* newNext = toRem->getNext();
el->setNext(newNext);
//deleteing old one
}
}
}
void show(){
Node* el = this->root;
while(el != NULL){
el->show();
el = el->getNext();
}
}
~List(){}
private:
Node* root;
};
int main(){
List* l = new List(1); //first list
l->add(2);
l->add(3);
l->show();
cout << endl;
List* lala = new List(*l); //lala is second list created by copy cosntructor
lala->show();
cout << endl;
lala->add(4);
lala->remove(0);
lala->show();
return 0;
}
I suggest you to start with implementing destructor of List. Since you dynamically allocated memory by using new, you should free it by using delete. (If you used new[], it would be delete[]):
~List()
{
Node* currentNode = this->root; // initialize current node to root
while (currentNode)
{
Node* nextNode = currentNode->getNext(); // get next node
delete currentNode; // delete current
currentNode = nextNode; // set current to "old" next
}
}
Once you have proper destructor, you should try whether your copy constructor is correct:
List* lala = new List(*l);
delete l; // delete list that was used to create copy, shouldn't affect copy
you will find out that your copy constructor is wrong and also causes your application to crash. Why? Because purpose of copy constructor is to create a new object as a copy of an existing object. Your copy constructor just copies pointers assuming sizeof(Node*) equal to sizeof(int). It should look like this:
List(const List& list)
{
// if empty list is being copied:
if (!list.root)
{
this->root = NULL;
return;
}
// create new root:
this->root = new Node(NULL, list.root->getWrt());
Node* list_currentNode = list.root;
Node* this_currentNode = this->root;
while (list_currentNode->getNext())
{
// create new successor:
Node* newNode = new Node(NULL, list_currentNode->getNext()->getWrt());
this_currentNode->setNext(newNode);
this_currentNode = this_currentNode->getNext();
list_currentNode = list_currentNode->getNext();
}
}
Also your function remove is wrong since it "removes" reference to some Node but never frees memory where this Node resides. delete should be called in order to free this memory.
"I need to implement working destructor on node" - No, you don't. Node itself doesn't allocate any memory, thus it shouldn't free any memory. Node shouldn't be responsible for destruction of Node* next nor cleaning memory where it's stored. Don't implement destructor nor copy constructor of Node. You also want to read this: What is The Rule of Three?
"Make the List friendly to Node so I will not have to use getNext()" - You want to say within Node class, that class List is its friend:
class Node
{
friend class List; // <-- that's it
Note that from these 5 headers that you include your code requires only one: <iostream>.
Also note that writing using namespace std; at the beginning of the file is considered bad practice since it may cause names of some of your types become ambiguous. Use it wisely within small scopes or use std:: prefix instead.
The linked list destructor will be called either when delete is used with a previously allocated pointer to a linked list or when a linked list variable goes out of scope (e.g., a local variable is destroyed when returning from a function).
The destructor for the linked list should be responsible to free the memory you previously reserved for the nodes (i.e., using add operation). So, basically, you need to traverse the list of nodes and apply the delete operation on each one of them. There is a little trick: when you are about to delete a node you must be careful not to lose the pointer to the next element (when a node is deleted you cannot be sure that next member will still be valid).
If you want to create a destructor for your Node, it should be quite simple actually.
Here it is:
class Node {
private:
int wrt;
Node* next;
public:
Node(Node* next, int wrt) {
this->next = next;
this->wrt = wrt;
}
// Your desired destructor using recursion
~Node() {
if ( next != NULL )
delete next;
}
};
It's that simple :)
Basically, right before the Node is deleted, if next is not empty, we delete next, which will again call the destructor of next, and if next->next is not empty, again the destructor gets called over and over.
Then in the end all Nodes get deleted.
The recursion takes care of the whole thing :)