2problem completed

[BharathVuppala96]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Your solution is well-structured and follows the double hashing approach correctly. Here are some specific points for improvement:

1. Remove unrelated code: The file contains a MinStack class which is not part of the HashSet problem. Please ensure that your solution only includes the relevant code for the problem at hand.

2. Consistency in using variables: In your hash1 and hash2 methods, you have hardcoded 1000. However, you have defined self.bucket and self.bucketItem as 1000. You should use these variables instead of hardcoding to maintain consistency. For example:

   • hash1 should return key % self.bucket
   • hash2 should return key // self.bucketItem (but note: in the reference solution, the secondary hash uses the same primaryBuckets value? Actually, in the reference solution, both primary and secondary buckets are 1000, and the secondary hash uses key / secondaryBuckets which is 1000. So in your case, it should be key // self.bucketItem). However, to be precise, the reference solution uses integer division for the secondary hash? Actually, in Java, it's integer division. In Python, you are using integer division (//) which is correct.

   But wait: in the reference solution, the secondary hash is computed as key / secondaryBuckets (which is integer division in Java when both are integers). So in Python, using // is correct.

   However, you should use self.bucket and self.bucketItem in the hash functions to avoid magic numbers.

3. Naming: Consider renaming hash1 to get_primary_hash and hash2 to get_secondary_hash for clarity.

4. Edge case handling: Your handling of the first bucket (index 0) is correct. This is necessary to accommodate the key 1000000, which would require a secondary array of size 1001 (since 1000000 // 1000 = 1000, which is an index that requires an array of size 1001).

5. Minor issue: In the remove method, you set the value to False. This is correct. However, you don't need to check if the primary bucket is None before accessing? Actually, you do check and return if it is None. This is correct.

Overall, your solution is good but needs to avoid hardcoding and remove the unrelated code.