Refine wording in Saddle Points

[MatthijsBlom]

As per @iHiD's request here.

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[MatthijsBlom]

I agree with @jordancurve that there is a risk here of the very same confusion that we are trying to avoid.

[kotp]

Isn't the largest or greatest height "tallest tree" and the least height being the "shortest tree", given the problem we are solving?

[MatthijsBlom]

The problem is that «the tallest tree» might not be unique. People have been frustrated by test cases with several tallest/shortest trees per row/column, because based on the instructions they expected there to be only one.

[kotp]

The tests should enforce the detail though, right? So any ambiguity is clarified by expressed expectation, one would think.

[IsaacG]

The whole point of this PR is to clarify this point. It is okay fort the prose to omit a detail and for the test to enforce that detail. It is less okay for the prose to imply one thing and the test to enforce something that contradicts that thing.

[kotp]

The tests do seem to have covered multiple "shortest tree" at least in the single column test. Or to express it in the way the test explains it "saddle points" meaning there can be more than one.
I wholly agree that the prose should not contradict, while omission is OK (not great, necessarily, but sometimes purposefully done).

I think that the detail that there may be more than one saddle point is expressed in the tests even by name.

We may see that here:

    {
      "uuid": "ee99ccd2-a1f1-4283-ad39-f8c70f0cf594",
      "description": "Can identify that saddle points in a single column matrix are those with the minimum value",
      "property": "saddlePoints",
      "input": {
        "matrix": [
          [2],
          [1],
          [4],
          [1]
        ]
      },
      "expected": [
        {
          "row": 2,
          "column": 1
        },
        {
          "row": 4,
          "column": 1
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "uuid": "63abf709-a84b-407f-a1b3-456638689713",
      "description": "Can identify that saddle points in a single row matrix are those with the maximum value",
      "property": "saddlePoints",
      "input": {
        "matrix": [
          [2, 5, 3, 5]
        ]
      },
      "expected": [
        {
          "row": 1,
          "column": 2
        },
        {
          "row": 1,
          "column": 4
        }

[kotp]

Suggested change

	An acceptable tree will have the greatest height in its row, while having the least height in its column.
	An acceptable tree will be the tallest in its row, while being the shortest in its column.

[ErikSchierboom]

@kotp "will the tallest" should that be "will be the tallest"?

[ErikSchierboom]

@MatthijsBlom What about the above suggestion?

[MatthijsBlom]

This suggestion comes down to

-An acceptable tree will be the largest in its row, while being the smallest in its column.
+An acceptable tree will be the tallest in its row, while being the shortest in its column.

which doesn't solve the problem this PR aims to solve.

[ErikSchierboom]

Couldn't we use the phrasing from the introduction?

[MatthijsBlom]

We could. I figured the difference between introduction.md and instructions.md might be deliberate, so I kept them different.

[ErikSchierboom]

I'm fine with unifying them, especially when it turns out that the terminology is so hard to get right.

[MatthijsBlom]

If we use the same wording in both cases, we could also de-duplicate.

One potential advantage of using two different descriptions: these provide different perspectives on the same problem.

[MatthijsBlom]

I did not agree to applying this suggestion, but it was applied anyway.

The point of my change was to fix an inaccuracy. This now applied suggestion effectively reverts my change and reintroduces the original inaccuracy. This inaccuracy has previously irritated people, hence this PR. See the forum thread, and the other threads here.

[kotp]

I provided a "commit suggestion" block to address the tallest and shortest tree.

[ErikSchierboom]

What I think might help is to have an additional example, besides the

Here is a grid that has exactly one candidate tree.

[IsaacG]

Suggested change

	- at least as tall as all trees to the east and west, so that you have the best possible view of the sunrises and sunsets.
	- at most as tall as all trees to the north and south, to minimize the amount of tree climbing.
	- at least as tall as all the trees to the east and west, so that you have the best possible view of the sunrises and sunsets.
	- at most as tall as all the trees to the north and south, to minimize the amount of tree climbing.