It might, but if you're going to evaluate all possibilities,
who cares? As in, if you are worried about a scenario such
as the following, where the 10 gets bagged "solo" despite
there being a -5 farther down the pipeline:
` ( [ 9 ], [ 10, -5], [ 11 ] )`
Then later on you will inevitably evaluate a scenario where
the -5 is inserted earlier.
` ( [ 9, -5, 10 ], [11] )`
So, taking the "brute force" approach, you might lose points
for style, but you get the job done, no?
Has anyone ever pointed out to a grocery checker that
the bagging problem was NP-complete? The result might be
similar to explaining that dogs can solve quadratic equations
(i.e. capturing a frisbee in a parabolic arc while in linear
motion). | [reply] [d/l] [select] |

*Has anyone ever pointed out to a grocery checker that the bagging problem was NP-complete?*
Has anyone ever had a grocery bagger that optimally bagged their groceries? Fortunately, the greedy heuristic which baggers generally use is not NP-complete =)
MeowChow
s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print | [reply] |