Qubit pair naming convention

[JacobHast]

The use of names "control" and "target" of the qubit pair class appears quite presumptuous, i.e., it seems to assume an asymmetry between the qubits and also that one intents to perform "control"-like operations on the qubits. Would it perhaps make more sense to make this core class a bit more agnostic by renaming to, e.g., qubit "A" and "B"? (one could also consider "1" and "2", but since many QPUs label qubits with numbers already, this might be confusing)

[nulinspiratie]

We had a long debate back in the day whether to keep it generic or to call one control and one target. We decided on control and target because many gates had a designated control and target (though fsim, swap etc. don't), and that from a qubit-control point of view, often one qubit is being manipulated and the other remains idle.

You're raising valid points though, and moving forward we're actually seeing many 2Q gates requiring simultaneous control on both qubits. So it's worth revisiting. We're planning a significant upgrade to Macros some time in the upcoming months, so we can reassess and implement any breaking changes to the naming convention there. Does this work for you?