Delete last node of linked list in go
Go program for Delete last node of linked list. Here problem description and explanation.
package main
import "fmt"
/*
Go program for
Delete the last node of singly linked list
*/
// Linked list node
type LinkNode struct {
data int
next * LinkNode
}
func getLinkNode(data int) * LinkNode {
return &LinkNode {data,nil}
}
type SingleLL struct {
head * LinkNode
tail * LinkNode
}
func getSingleLL() * SingleLL {
return &SingleLL {nil,nil}
}
// Add new node at the end of linked list
func(this *SingleLL) addNode(value int) {
// Create a new node
var node * LinkNode = getLinkNode(value)
if this.head == nil {
this.head = node
} else {
this.tail.next = node
}
// Set new last node
this.tail = node
}
// Display linked list element
func(this SingleLL) display() {
if this.head == nil {
fmt.Println("Empty Linked List")
return
}
var temp * LinkNode = this.head
// iterating linked list elements
for (temp != nil) {
fmt.Print(temp.data, " → ")
// Visit to next node
temp = temp.next
}
fmt.Println("NULL")
}
// Delete last node of singly linked list
func(this *SingleLL) deleteLastNode() {
if this.head == nil {
fmt.Println("Empty Linked List")
return
} else {
var temp * LinkNode = this.head
var find * LinkNode = nil
// Find second last node
for (temp.next != nil) {
find = temp
temp = temp.next
}
if find == nil {
// Delete head node of linked list
this.head = nil
this.tail = nil
} else {
// Set new last node
this.tail = find
find.next = nil
}
}
}
func main() {
var sll * SingleLL = getSingleLL()
// Linked list
// 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → NULL
sll.addNode(1)
sll.addNode(2)
sll.addNode(3)
sll.addNode(4)
sll.addNode(5)
sll.addNode(6)
fmt.Println("Before Delete ")
sll.display()
sll.deleteLastNode()
fmt.Println("After Delete ")
sll.display()
}
Output
Before Delete
1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → NULL
After Delete
1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → NULL
Please share your knowledge to improve code and content standard. Also submit your doubts, and test case. We improve by your feedback. We will try to resolve your query as soon as possible.
New Comment