Intention behind not updating a Queen Attack test about haskell

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening an issue on Exercism. We are currently in a phase of our journey where we have paused community contributions to allow us to take a breather and redesign our community model. You can learn more in this blog post. As such, all issues and PRs in this repository are being automatically closed.

That doesn't mean we're not interested in your ideas, or that if you're stuck on something we don't want to help. The best place to discuss things is with our community on the Exercism Community Forum. You can use this link to copy this into a new topic there.

---

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

[petertseng]

I must have had a different idea of what constitutes "different diagonals" than the submitter of exercism/problem-specifications#1504. If we look at (2, 2) in relation to the four different values it's being compared against: (0, 4), (3, 1), (1, 1), (5, 5), we have: (LT, GT), (GT, LT), (LT, LT), (GT, GT). But if it were changed to (1, 7) vs (0, 6), well that's a (LT, LT) and then we don't have a (GT, GT) case, and that doesn't make sense to me.

But I see from reading exercism/problem-specifications#1504 this allows a different problem, because the important part isn't really their relative positions; it's about testing two different rising/falling diagonals. However I think if the Haskell track takes this case, we should use (0, 6) vs (1, 7) instead of (1, 7) vs (0, 6), so that we still have a (GT, GT) case.

For those who aren't following along, the mathematics behind it is that one kind of diagonal is expressed as y = x + b, and the other kind is expressed as y = -x + b. For each kind of diagonal, we should test a different b value. This is why we should incorporate the (0, 6) vs (1, 7) case instead of staying with the old values.

Honestly though that means that one of the two cases (2, 2), (0, 4) or (2, 2), (3, 1) should be changed too, since they are obviously going to be testing the same diagonal as well (since they both contain (2, 2). That should also get submitted to problem-specifications.