Converting Reverse Polish to Infix Notation in Java
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I am trying to solve a programming challange that involves converting reverse polish notation to infix notation. For example: 1 3 + 2 4 5 - + / would be: ((1+3)/(2+(4-5))) My solution so far does work, but it's not fast enough. So I am looking for any optimization advice.
public class betteralgo {
public static void main(String args) throws IOException {
BufferedReader bi = new BufferedReader(new
InputStreamReader(System.in));
String line = bi.readLine();
String input = line.split(" ");
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
Stack<String> stack = new Stack<String>();
for(String e:input) {
switch(e){
case("+"):
case("-"):
case("*"):
case("/"):
String i = stack.pop();
String k = stack.pop();
stack.push("(" + k + e + i + ")");
break;
default:
stack.push(e);
}
}
System.out.println(stack.pop());
}
}
java performance algorithm math-expression-eval
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I am trying to solve a programming challange that involves converting reverse polish notation to infix notation. For example: 1 3 + 2 4 5 - + / would be: ((1+3)/(2+(4-5))) My solution so far does work, but it's not fast enough. So I am looking for any optimization advice.
public class betteralgo {
public static void main(String args) throws IOException {
BufferedReader bi = new BufferedReader(new
InputStreamReader(System.in));
String line = bi.readLine();
String input = line.split(" ");
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
Stack<String> stack = new Stack<String>();
for(String e:input) {
switch(e){
case("+"):
case("-"):
case("*"):
case("/"):
String i = stack.pop();
String k = stack.pop();
stack.push("(" + k + e + i + ")");
break;
default:
stack.push(e);
}
}
System.out.println(stack.pop());
}
}
java performance algorithm math-expression-eval
2
"it's not fast enough" – for which input? How long does it take? Is there a concrete time limit that you need to achieve?
– Martin R
Sep 7 at 12:52
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I am trying to solve a programming challange that involves converting reverse polish notation to infix notation. For example: 1 3 + 2 4 5 - + / would be: ((1+3)/(2+(4-5))) My solution so far does work, but it's not fast enough. So I am looking for any optimization advice.
public class betteralgo {
public static void main(String args) throws IOException {
BufferedReader bi = new BufferedReader(new
InputStreamReader(System.in));
String line = bi.readLine();
String input = line.split(" ");
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
Stack<String> stack = new Stack<String>();
for(String e:input) {
switch(e){
case("+"):
case("-"):
case("*"):
case("/"):
String i = stack.pop();
String k = stack.pop();
stack.push("(" + k + e + i + ")");
break;
default:
stack.push(e);
}
}
System.out.println(stack.pop());
}
}
java performance algorithm math-expression-eval
I am trying to solve a programming challange that involves converting reverse polish notation to infix notation. For example: 1 3 + 2 4 5 - + / would be: ((1+3)/(2+(4-5))) My solution so far does work, but it's not fast enough. So I am looking for any optimization advice.
public class betteralgo {
public static void main(String args) throws IOException {
BufferedReader bi = new BufferedReader(new
InputStreamReader(System.in));
String line = bi.readLine();
String input = line.split(" ");
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
Stack<String> stack = new Stack<String>();
for(String e:input) {
switch(e){
case("+"):
case("-"):
case("*"):
case("/"):
String i = stack.pop();
String k = stack.pop();
stack.push("(" + k + e + i + ")");
break;
default:
stack.push(e);
}
}
System.out.println(stack.pop());
}
}
java performance algorithm math-expression-eval
java performance algorithm math-expression-eval
edited Sep 7 at 14:51
200_success
127k15148410
127k15148410
asked Sep 7 at 12:12
Joakim Hauger
92
92
2
"it's not fast enough" – for which input? How long does it take? Is there a concrete time limit that you need to achieve?
– Martin R
Sep 7 at 12:52
add a comment |
2
"it's not fast enough" – for which input? How long does it take? Is there a concrete time limit that you need to achieve?
– Martin R
Sep 7 at 12:52
2
2
"it's not fast enough" – for which input? How long does it take? Is there a concrete time limit that you need to achieve?
– Martin R
Sep 7 at 12:52
"it's not fast enough" – for which input? How long does it take? Is there a concrete time limit that you need to achieve?
– Martin R
Sep 7 at 12:52
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
If you want to do it faster I know that I once solved this with a hashMap which is much faster. The problem is that, depending on what you are going to use it for, it's harder to implement. I don't have time to show exactly how I did it now, I might come back to you, but it should give you a pointer on where to look.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
If you want to do it faster I know that I once solved this with a hashMap which is much faster. The problem is that, depending on what you are going to use it for, it's harder to implement. I don't have time to show exactly how I did it now, I might come back to you, but it should give you a pointer on where to look.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If you want to do it faster I know that I once solved this with a hashMap which is much faster. The problem is that, depending on what you are going to use it for, it's harder to implement. I don't have time to show exactly how I did it now, I might come back to you, but it should give you a pointer on where to look.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If you want to do it faster I know that I once solved this with a hashMap which is much faster. The problem is that, depending on what you are going to use it for, it's harder to implement. I don't have time to show exactly how I did it now, I might come back to you, but it should give you a pointer on where to look.
If you want to do it faster I know that I once solved this with a hashMap which is much faster. The problem is that, depending on what you are going to use it for, it's harder to implement. I don't have time to show exactly how I did it now, I might come back to you, but it should give you a pointer on where to look.
edited Sep 17 at 16:52
Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
7,71061748
7,71061748
answered Sep 17 at 16:33
NaCl-e
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f203301%2fconverting-reverse-polish-to-infix-notation-in-java%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
"it's not fast enough" – for which input? How long does it take? Is there a concrete time limit that you need to achieve?
– Martin R
Sep 7 at 12:52