Create a new condition that allows easy control by bitmasks

[NoureldinYosri]

This PR creates BitMaskKeyCondition a condition that can be used to create multiqubit classical conditions with bitmasks. This will be much easier than using sympy indexedbase

cc: @ikd-sci

---

Examples:

Any bit from 0, 2, 3 => 0b1101 = 13

In [4]: cond = cirq.BitMaskKeyCondition('m', bitmask=13)
   ...: c = cirq.Circuit(
   ...:     cirq.H.on_each(qs),
   ...:     cirq.measure(qs, key='m'),
   ...:     cirq.Y(cirq.q(5)).with_classical_controls(cond),
   ...: 
   ...: )
   ...: c
Out[4]: 
0: ───H───M────────────────────────────
          ║
1: ───H───M────────────────────────────
          ║
2: ───H───M────────────────────────────
          ║
3: ───H───M────────────────────────────
          ║
4: ───H───M────────────────────────────
          ║
5: ───────╫───Y(conditions=[m & 13])───
          ║   ║
m: ═══════@═══^════════════════════════

Contains 0b1011 = 11 as bitmask

In [5]: cond = cirq.BitMaskKeyCondition.create_equal_mask('m', bitmask=11)
   ...: c = cirq.Circuit(
   ...:     cirq.H.on_each(qs),
   ...:     cirq.measure(qs, key='m'),
   ...:     cirq.Y(cirq.q(5)).with_classical_controls(cond),
   ...: 
   ...: )
   ...: c
Out[5]: 
0: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
1: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
2: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
3: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
4: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
5: ───────╫───Y(conditions=[(m & 11) == 11])───
          ║   ║
m: ═══════@═══^════════════════════════════════

Doesn't contain 11 as a bitmask

In [6]: cond = cirq.BitMaskKeyCondition.create_not_equal_mask('m', bitmask=11)
   ...: c = cirq.Circuit(
   ...:     cirq.H.on_each(qs),
   ...:     cirq.measure(qs, key='m'),
   ...:     cirq.Y(cirq.q(5)).with_classical_controls(cond),
   ...: 
   ...: )
   ...: c
Out[6]: 
0: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
1: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
2: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
3: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
4: ───H───M────────────────────────────────────
          ║
5: ───────╫───Y(conditions=[(m & 11) != 11])───
          ║   ║
m: ═══════@═══^════════════════════════════════

[daxfohl]

Looks like this is doable in OpenQASM 3.0.

[daxfohl]

(FWIW I wish now that I hadn't made qasm abstract, and instead just implemented _qasm_ directly in the subclasses. As-is, qasm doesn't contain the args to check OpenQASM version, so you'd have to implement _qasm_ here anyway, but you still have to implement qasm because it's abstract. I'd recommend deprecating and removing qasm if it's possible.)

[NoureldinYosri]

for now I plan to just raise UnImplementedError and let the qasm decision for the people working on qasm integration

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.13%. Comparing base (3ae4ddb) to head (6cfb326).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7165   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.13%   98.13%           
=======================================
  Files        1093     1093           
  Lines       95579    95666   +87     
=======================================
+ Hits        93797    93883   +86     
- Misses       1782     1783    +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[daxfohl]

Maybe make this an enum instead of bool in case it needs extended?

[NoureldinYosri]

I think if we get to a point where we want to do $>, \geq, <, \leq$ then we will probably also want to do bitshifts $<<, >>$ so I will leave it to that time to refactor and add more abstraction

[daxfohl]

Curious why create a new class rather than add the functionality to KeyCondition?

[NoureldinYosri]

I prefer to leave KeyCondition as a simple condition and not overload it

[NoureldinYosri]

@daxfohl I don't know what happed to this PR but continuing in #7166