Not really consistent. Uses different braces placing style (i.e.: Line 33, Line 37). But in general way better than what we see usually.
Carey Brown wrote:Your indentation is good and consistent.
s ravi chandran wrote:Thanks for all the replies.
s ravi chandran wrote:(...)
If I use queue, how should it work?
1. Take an element , mark it visited.
2. Find it's neighbors, move to each neighbor and mark it visited.
3. Go to Step 1.
Will this logic work?
s ravi chandran wrote:Does the adjacency list functionality look correct?
s ravi chandran wrote:
Here are the items that are pending:
1) Complete AdjacencyMatrix and figure out how to use it in this program.
2) Utilizing listOfVertices in the program.
Next it shows that 0-->1 is connected, okay. But then it shows that 1-->0 is connected as well. Although that is true, given the nested for-next loop that you issue I would have expected to see the line '0-->2 is connected' first.
Also interesting is that 3-->4 and 4-->3 areboth displayed. Why?
And finally, although we see that there are only 4 edges, your method nevertheless says there are 5. And since 5 > nrOfVertices - 1 (i.e. 4) it concludes that the graph is not connected.
Suppose we have 6 vertices, how many edges do we have? (and edge(0.1) == edge(1,0) so beware of double counting).
And coming back to the graph that I tested: we have 4 edges, with 5 vertices. Yet the graph is not connected.
It is clear: counting the edges does not tell us much about the graph being connected. That is why I asked you to create three different graphs and to inspect th adjacency matrices, to get an idea if these matrices could answer the connectedness question without further ado.