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.
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3985 |
2 | jiangly | 3814 |
3 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
4 | Benq | 3529 |
5 | orzdevinwang | 3526 |
6 | ksun48 | 3517 |
7 | Radewoosh | 3410 |
8 | hos.lyric | 3399 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3392 |
9 | Um_nik | 3392 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 169 |
2 | maomao90 | 162 |
2 | Um_nik | 162 |
4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
5 | djm03178 | 158 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 157 |
7 | adamant | 155 |
8 | awoo | 154 |
8 | Dominater069 | 154 |
10 | luogu_official | 150 |
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.
Название |
---|
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?