I was trying to solve this problem. With this code I got several WA & wasted hours of time by debugging it. But I've changed to this got AC! With no change of idea. All I changed was a line of code O_o.
it = lower_bound( v.begin() , v.end() , com [ i ].size() );
to
a = com [ i ].size();
it = lower_bound( v.begin() , v.end() , a );
Is there any problem with that?
Thank You.
You also changed: v.erase( v.begin() , v.begin()+(it — v.begin() +1) ); to: *it = -1; sort( v.begin() , v.end() );
this is the exact code as the accepted code, I just changed the described change, it's giving WA.
look at this
simply use : it = lower_bound( v.begin() , v.end() , int(com [ i ].size()) ); lower_bound is a template function it detects type(T) by last parameter.
vector.size returning size_t (Unsigned int) so you have lower_bound for size_t values vs int values.
Wow, what a shot!
I didn't know that it returns Unsigned int. Thank you.