yes, that was an implementation mistake but what I meant to say was- Adding extra check of indirect xor'ing could have a pitfall too. Try the case: [0 1 1 1 4 4] http://ideone.com/3sreLZ
On 4 November 2012 10:13, Vikram Pradhan <vpradha...@gmail.com> wrote: > It should have caught in the first loop where i checked that condition if > the first value (which is 3 in this case) is repeated or not ...but > unfortunately i implemented that wrong ...so now i've corrected that > mistake ..i hope now it'll work fine .. > http://ideone.com/MQ44Rt > > the whole idea of using xor is that we don't have to modify the array as > i've seen this same question somewhere else where the condition was that > the array is a read only array ..otherwise Don's method will work fine . > > > > > > > > Vikram Pradhan | B.Tech| Computer Science & Engineering | NIT Jalandhar >> | 9740186063 | >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Algorithm Geeks" group. > To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
