Return to Answer

added 90 characters in body

Source Link

edited Nov 15, 2017 at 15:03

The method should be public.

Testing for the current.next != null condition is unnecessary. Also, consider writing the loop as a for loop for clarity.:

for (Node current = head; current != null; current = current.next) {
    …
}

You don't need to call seen.contains(), because seen.add() will return false if the item you are adding is already in the set.

The method should be public.

Testing for the current.next != null condition is unnecessary. Also, consider writing the loop as a for loop for clarity.

You don't need to call seen.contains(), because seen.add() will return false if the item you are adding is already in the set.

The method should be public.

Testing for the current.next != null condition is unnecessary. Also, consider writing the loop as a for loop for clarity:

for (Node current = head; current != null; current = current.next) {
    …
}

You don't need to call seen.contains(), because seen.add() will return false if the item you are adding is already in the set.

Source Link

answered Nov 15, 2017 at 14:59

The method should be public.

Testing for the current.next != null condition is unnecessary. Also, consider writing the loop as a for loop for clarity.

You don't need to call seen.contains(), because seen.add() will return false if the item you are adding is already in the set.