John Gamble

(I'm willing to do the legwork on this one if there is consensus that it's OK)

@sserita , thank you! This makes sense to me. Are there any other switches that I should be aware of to get the pspec-created explicit models to behave the same...

Tim, thanks for the detailed explanation - this is crystal clear now. And the code I posted above actually *does* work for me! I was getting myself confused with a...

Indeed, thanks Stefan! The motivation for this is that I'd actually like to set my availability dict to be: ``` availability = { 'Gxpi2': [('Q0',), ('Q1',)], 'Gypi2': [('Q0',), ('Q1',)], 'Gxx':[('Q0','Q1')]}...

Tim, just tried this out and unfortunately no dice (after I fixed my typo): ``` from pygsti.processors import QubitProcessorSpec as QPS import numpy as np uxx = 1./np.sqrt(2) * np.array([[1,0,0,-1j],...

Thanks, Erik. The compilation works fine in the above, but somehow the model still has a redundant gate (both Gxx:Q0:Q1 and Gxx:Q1:Q0).

@sserita , thanks - would you recommend I work from develop for now or just monkey patch as workaround?

Will do! Happy to be the canary on these things and I expect my group will be making heavy use of pygsti.

@sserita , confirmed fixed in develop. Thanks!

@coreyostrove , thanks for the follow-up. This isn't critical for me right now, but I think that this example should be removed at the very least. Have the pygsti devs...