Completed Design Problem for HashMap and Min Stack

[pratikb0501]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Implement Hash Set (Problem_1.py)

Strengths:

• The student has implemented the double hashing technique correctly, which efficiently handles collisions.
• The code is well-structured and includes comments explaining the overall approach.
• The edge case for the first bucket (index 0) is properly handled by allocating an extra secondary bucket.

Areas for Improvement:

1. The variable names could be more descriptive. For example, my_set is a bit vague; storage or buckets might be more intuitive.
2. The secondary hash function in the reference solution uses integer division (//), which is consistent with the student's implementation. However, the student's code uses secondaryBucket for both the divisor and the secondary bucket size. This is correct, but it's important to note that the secondary bucket size for the first primary bucket is 1001, while for others it is 1000. This is necessary because when primary == 0, the secondary index for key 1000000 would be 1000 (since 1000000 // 1000 = 1000), which requires an array of size 1001 (indexes 0 to 1000). The student has handled this correctly.
3. The code includes a test case at the bottom, which is good for testing but should be removed in a production environment or if the code is to be submitted as part of a solution where only the class is required.
4. The student should consider adding docstrings to the methods to explain their purpose, parameters, and return values for better clarity.
5. The hash1 and hash2 functions are simple and efficient, but the names could be more descriptive (e.g., primary_hash and secondary_hash).

VERDICT: PASS

---

Implement Min Stack (Problem_2.py)

Your solution is well-structured and correctly implements the required functionality. Here are some points to consider for improvement:

1. Removing Example Code: The example usage at the end of the file (lines 30-37) should be removed. In a typical coding problem submission, only the class definition is required. The test cases are usually run separately.

2. Edge Case Handling: Although the problem constraints guarantee that operations are called on non-empty stacks, it's good practice to consider edge cases. For instance, in the pop method, you check if the stack is empty before popping. This is good, but note that the problem states that operations will always be called on non-empty stacks, so it's not strictly necessary. However, it doesn't hurt to have this check.

3. Code Comments: Your initial comment explains the approach well. However, you might want to add comments within the methods to clarify the logic, especially for others who might read your code.

4. Consistency and Readability: The code is clean and readable. The variable names are descriptive. You could consider using more descriptive names for the stack (e.g., stack instead of st), but st is acceptable in this context.

5. Efficiency: Your solution is efficient with O(1) time for all operations and O(n) space. The approach of storing the minimum along with each value is a common and effective technique.

Overall, you did a great job. The solution is correct and efficient.

VERDICT: PASS