Move on_each to cirq.Gate #4236
Closed
Conversation
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
mpharrigan
reviewed
Jun 21, 2021
mpharrigan
requested changes
Jun 21, 2021
|
@daxfohl is this ready for re-review? |
|
Yes, the new code only supports the strict option for multi-qubit gates, per the discussion here: #4034 (comment) |
|
@daxfohl, how would you feel about splitting this into two PRs, one to generalize |
mpharrigan
reviewed
Jul 1, 2021
|
some readability concerns raised above. I agree with @maffoo that this change would benefit from being split into the two proposed parts |
|
Sure, I can address those concerns and split into two PRs. |
|
First part added at #4281. We can return to this later then. I'll move it to draft status. @mpharrigan @maffoo |
CirqBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2021
Adds on_each support to the SupportsOnEachGate mixin for multi-qubit gates. The handling here is not as flexible as for single-qubit gates, which allows any tree of gates and applies them depth-first. This allows the following two options for multi-qubit gates: ``` A: varargs form gate.on_each([q1, q2], [q3, q4]) B: explicit form gate.on_each([[q1, q2], [q3, q4]]) ``` Discussion here, #4034 (comment). Part of #4236.
|
Closing in favor of #4303 |
CirqBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 31, 2021
Closes #2164 Copies `Two/ThreeQubitGate` to cirq.testing due to its convenience there, and deprecates the originals. BREAKING CHANGE: @balopat @95-martin-orion @tanujkhattar During the deprecation period, `isinstance(TwoQubitGate)` has been shimmed such that it will now return True iff _num_qubits_() returns 2, regardless of whether it's actually part of the class hierarchy (and same for ThreeQubitGate). It's not expected that this will cause real-world breakages, but possible. This can go before or after #4236, as they are disjoint problems.
rht
pushed a commit
to rht/Cirq
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2023
Adds on_each support to the SupportsOnEachGate mixin for multi-qubit gates. The handling here is not as flexible as for single-qubit gates, which allows any tree of gates and applies them depth-first. This allows the following two options for multi-qubit gates: ``` A: varargs form gate.on_each([q1, q2], [q3, q4]) B: explicit form gate.on_each([[q1, q2], [q3, q4]]) ``` Discussion here, quantumlib#4034 (comment). Part of quantumlib#4236.
rht
pushed a commit
to rht/Cirq
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2023
Closes quantumlib#2164 Copies `Two/ThreeQubitGate` to cirq.testing due to its convenience there, and deprecates the originals. BREAKING CHANGE: @balopat @95-martin-orion @tanujkhattar During the deprecation period, `isinstance(TwoQubitGate)` has been shimmed such that it will now return True iff _num_qubits_() returns 2, regardless of whether it's actually part of the class hierarchy (and same for ThreeQubitGate). It's not expected that this will cause real-world breakages, but possible. This can go before or after quantumlib#4236, as they are disjoint problems.
harry-phasecraft
pushed a commit
to PhaseCraft/Cirq
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2024
Adds on_each support to the SupportsOnEachGate mixin for multi-qubit gates. The handling here is not as flexible as for single-qubit gates, which allows any tree of gates and applies them depth-first. This allows the following two options for multi-qubit gates: ``` A: varargs form gate.on_each([q1, q2], [q3, q4]) B: explicit form gate.on_each([[q1, q2], [q3, q4]]) ``` Discussion here, quantumlib#4034 (comment). Part of quantumlib#4236.
harry-phasecraft
pushed a commit
to PhaseCraft/Cirq
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2024
Closes quantumlib#2164 Copies `Two/ThreeQubitGate` to cirq.testing due to its convenience there, and deprecates the originals. BREAKING CHANGE: @balopat @95-martin-orion @tanujkhattar During the deprecation period, `isinstance(TwoQubitGate)` has been shimmed such that it will now return True iff _num_qubits_() returns 2, regardless of whether it's actually part of the class hierarchy (and same for ThreeQubitGate). It's not expected that this will cause real-world breakages, but possible. This can go before or after quantumlib#4236, as they are disjoint problems.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
Part of #4034. (See #4034 (comment))
This can go before or after #4207, as they are disjoint problems.
Note that deprecating
SingleQubitGatewill be more troublesome than the others, as things like_CALIBRATION_IRRELEVANT_GATESandNOISE_MODEL_LIKEdepend on it.