Just leaving this here:
auto q = priority_queue(greater(), vector{pair{0ll, 0}});
// or
auto q = priority_queue(greater(), vector{tuple{0ll, 0, 0}});
Only works in GCC 9.1 and up, so you have to submit as GCC C++17 64bit in Codeforces.
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3845 |
2 | jiangly | 3707 |
3 | Benq | 3630 |
4 | orzdevinwang | 3573 |
5 | Geothermal | 3569 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
7 | jqdai0815 | 3532 |
8 | ecnerwala | 3501 |
9 | gyh20 | 3447 |
10 | Rebelz | 3409 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 171 |
2 | awoo | 163 |
3 | adamant | 162 |
4 | maroonrk | 152 |
5 | nor | 151 |
5 | -is-this-fft- | 151 |
7 | atcoder_official | 147 |
7 | TheScrasse | 147 |
9 | Petr | 145 |
10 | pajenegod | 144 |
Just leaving this here:
auto q = priority_queue(greater(), vector{pair{0ll, 0}});
// or
auto q = priority_queue(greater(), vector{tuple{0ll, 0, 0}});
Only works in GCC 9.1 and up, so you have to submit as GCC C++17 64bit in Codeforces.
Name |
---|
I like to write:
Its a bit longer than your option but you dont need to worry about the compiler version. Alternatively you can just use negative values to order correctly in the priority queue, but I dont like that either
not related, but my friend likes to write
:D
Why bother?..
Because set is much slower?