Open stylewarning opened 5 years ago
Would this be enough to satisfy this issue
- ("16QMUX" . ,(quil::build-16QMUX-chip))
+ ("16QMUX" . ,(quil::build-nQ-trivalent-chip 1 1 8 4))
("bristlecone" . ,(quil::build-bristlecone-chip))
No: the qubits in build-16QMUX-chip
follow a different indexing convention than those in build-nQ-trivalent-chip
. I think an ideal solution would take width
and height
options that describe how many octagons there are tiled in each direction. Someone will need to talk to internal sources (and so maybe this isn't a "good first issue") to figure out what the octagon numbering conventions are when there are more than 3 of them.
16QMUX chip was made special as a quick fix to adjust the numbering scheme. Instead we should modify
build-nq-trivalent-chip
to have the correct numbering, then implementbuild-16qmux
out of that.