On 04 Dec 2001 02:20:19AM -0600, Michael Chaney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > The biggest problem that I see is that "9 9 + 9 +" is identical to > "9 9 9 + +", "9 9 9 + *" is identical to "9 9 9 * +", etc. so there is > room for optimization. Ultimately, it would probably make sense to run > your output through another program to determine which in the list are
Hehehe. No need to determine - just evaluate each expression and sort. ;) Pipes are our friends. > for a bunch of 9's and operators, and ultimately it's probably the > same as the number of combinations of operators and parenthetical Actually, hmmm.. you're right, there's a nuance I think I've missed. Is permutation called for, or can we assume that all 9s end up at the left? I've a sinking feeling that the former is the case, but I'd like to be proven wrong. If so, that raises the complexity a notch, but postfix does tend to make it easier - just generate unique permutations, I suppose. What's the total count of possible expressions? > placement for solving it in infix notation. The point, which I've now > made a few times but will again, is that the code to do it postfix style > is much simpler since it has less work to do. Well, actually, it's also much easier to conceptualize - but then again, that's probably just me and my inherent dislike of anything involving subsets... ;) -- Sacha Chua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 BS CS geek =) Ateneo Cervini-Eliazo Networks (ACENT) tel: 63(2) 426-6001 loc 5925 BOFH excuse #288: Hard drive sleeping. Let it wake up on it's own... _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
