The documentation states "Method macros provide better code organization by keeping qubit-specific logic within the qubit class itself, while still maintaining full compatibility with the QUAM macro system." However, as illustrated by the reset example, method macros require method arguments (e.g. threshold in qubit reset example) rather than macro attributes, as in the MeasureMacro also in documentation examples. As I see it, having attributes is far superior, e.g., the threshold is something that we calibrate once and then use per default. But as illustrated in the program example with method macros we need to "by-hand" put in the desired threshold every time we use the macro. So to me it doesn't look like we "maintain full compatibility with the QUAM macro system"? Am I missing something? Is there a way to get "best of both worlds"?
The documentation states "Method macros provide better code organization by keeping qubit-specific logic within the qubit class itself, while still maintaining full compatibility with the QUAM macro system." However, as illustrated by the reset example, method macros require method arguments (e.g. threshold in qubit reset example) rather than macro attributes, as in the MeasureMacro also in documentation examples. As I see it, having attributes is far superior, e.g., the threshold is something that we calibrate once and then use per default. But as illustrated in the program example with method macros we need to "by-hand" put in the desired threshold every time we use the macro. So to me it doesn't look like we "maintain full compatibility with the QUAM macro system"? Am I missing something? Is there a way to get "best of both worlds"?