Thomas Haener

Sure! But as mentioned in #71 , I'd prefer to put such functionality in a new type (e.g., `Quint` in this case). Indeed, this works nicely for some functions and...

Thanks for pointing this out! I will try to make the current implementation more robust as soon as I find time.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to design a logo! We will discuss and give feedback asap.

I think it would be nicer to have one global interface instead of users having to specify all tolerances in every compiler engine which may need them (rotation synthesis, optimizers,...

I think gate tolerances should be exposed on a more global level, e.g., in `projectq.ops.config`. There, we can define default values and users can use something like `projectq.ops.configure('some file')` to...

I think adding a new gate for rotations around arbitrary axes would indeed be useful. However, I wouldn't introduce another way to write functions via `Concatenate` or `At`; writing it...

Are you able to reproduce this? Did you `export OMP_NUM_THREADS=1` for the fast version? Because if you only use a single qubit, you shouldn't be using multiple threads. Also, gate...

The main reason for not being amplitude agnostic is for the tests to complete within a reasonable amount of time (e.g., direct access to probabilities without having to sample). And...

I think it should be straight-forward to implement, e.g., `MeasureX` as an additional gate and register a default decomposition rule which does the basis change. I don't see much benefit...

I agree that there are benefits, but there is no pi in the definition of Rz (I'd expect its argument to be theta in exp(+/- i*theta/2)). Not providing `Rz` at...