Knights Travails: Remove explicit instruction on search algorithm and implementation#31236
Open
mao-sz wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Knights Travails: Remove explicit instruction on search algorithm and implementation#31236mao-sz wants to merge 2 commits into
mao-sz wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Part of the pedagogy is thinking through how DFS and BFS actually work. Giving things away shortcuts that.
As per style guide
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Because
#29827 added explicit instruction to use BFS as a "helpful tip", though this directly conflicts with the assignment step to think through DFS and BFS and decide which to use.
I firmly believe that though it's a tricky project, this is still an extremely important learning opp that shouldn't be spoilt (both deciding between the algos and thinking through implementation - learners have been exposed to BFS and DFS implementations before). I do think the original wording is a little vague though (I've come across plenty who'd over-think "search algorithm" and miss that it essentially refers to DFS/BFS).
Other problems include stating that visited positions need tracking - this is only required for DFS and is only an optimisation for BFS. This IMHO is a big part of understanding DFS and BFS, when someone realises how BFS doesn't actually require it.
Landing #30700 will also help learners a lot in the long run, though I believe this PR should be a good middle ground that doesn't need to be blocked until that lands.
This PR
For both pathways' KT projects:
Issue
Closes #29783
Pull Request Requirements
location of change: brief description of changeformat, e.g.Intro to HTML and CSS lesson: Fix link textBecausesection summarizes the reason for this PRThis PRsection has a bullet point list describing the changes in this PRIssuesection