-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support basic single qubit controlled gates #89
Conversation
- The single controlled gate sets are supported but requires a slight modification - The multicontrolled gates can be considered in future versions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have updated the branch, the checks should now work. One small question left.
Happy to make a release after this is sorted.
} | ||
|
||
|
||
_known_quil_gate_rev = {v: k for k, v in _known_quil_gate.items()} | ||
|
||
# Gates with single control | ||
_single_control_gates = ["CH", "CY"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is CNOT and CPhase not in this list?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And also CZ
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CNOT
would not work with the logic below because there is no NOT
gate, I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You could do X for Cnot?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But line 311 assumes that the name from character 1 onwards is a valid gate name. This does seem like fragile assumption, and I think it would be better to implement this as a dictionary (name of controlled gate --> name of gate).
The checks are still showing a problem, are you looking into that? @glanzz |
Checking |
Description
Checklist