Completed Two-Pointers-2 Assignment

[Hriday-A]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Merging of 2 arrays (Merge_sorted_array.java)

Strengths:

• The solution is correct and efficient, with optimal time and space complexity.
• The code is clean, well-commented, and easy to understand.
• The approach is well-explained in the comments.

Areas for Improvement:

• While the code is correct, it might be beneficial to add a comment explaining why the second while loop is necessary (i.e., if there are remaining elements in nums2 after processing all elements in nums1, they need to be copied over). This would enhance readability for someone reviewing the code.
• Alternatively, you could consider using a single while loop that handles both arrays without an extra loop for nums2. For example, you could write:
  while (p2 >= 0) {
  if (p1 >= 0 && nums1[p1] > nums2[p2]) {
  nums1[idx--] = nums1[p1--];
  } else {
  nums1[idx--] = nums2[p2--];
  }
  }
  This version is slightly more concise but achieves the same result. However, the current code is perfectly acceptable.

Overall, this is an excellent solution.

VERDICT: PASS

---

Search 2D sorted matrix II (search_2d_matrix_2.java)

Your solution is excellent! You've implemented an efficient algorithm that is optimal for this problem. The time complexity of O(m + n) is better than the reference solution's O(m log n), especially for larger matrices. Your code is well-structured and includes helpful comments. One minor suggestion: consider adding a check for an empty matrix at the beginning to handle edge cases, although the constraints state that m, n >= 1, so it's not strictly necessary. Overall, great job!

VERDICT: PASS

---

Edit and Remove Duplicates in an array (Remove_dublicates.java)

Your solution is correct and efficient. You have successfully implemented the two-pointer technique with a counter to keep track of duplicates. The code is mostly clean and readable. However, here are a few suggestions for improvement:

1. Variable naming: Consider using more descriptive names for variables. For example, c could be renamed to count to make the code more understandable.
2. Remove commented code: The line // int fast = 1; is not needed and should be removed to keep the code clean.
3. Initialization: Your approach of starting slow at 1 is valid, but it relies on the first element being always correct. This is acceptable, but be aware that it might be less intuitive to some readers. The reference solution starts both pointers at 0 and handles the first element in the loop, which is also a common approach.

Overall, your solution is good and meets the requirements.

VERDICT: PASS