interpreters: (irdl) generate better op name

[alexarice]

Fixes #3527
Stacked but can be unstacked

[superlopuh]

Let's unstack

[superlopuh]

Oh and let's fix the test also to remove the cmath check

[alexarice]

Let's unstack

Might be easier just to deal with one PR at a time on second thoughts

[superlopuh]

Your call

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.37%. Comparing base (2479bdd) to head (6659aad).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3529   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.37%   90.37%           
=======================================
  Files         466      466           
  Lines       58561    58561           
  Branches     5585     5585           
=======================================
  Hits        52926    52926           
  Misses       4206     4206           
  Partials     1429     1429           

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

[math-fehr]

Nice!
Actually I'm wondering if we should not move get_op_name to OperationOp directly?
Just to make it more easily discoverable, since it is only a few lines of code anyway

[superlopuh]

I like that a lot, although in that case I'd call it something like get_py_class_name

[superlopuh]

It definitely seems easier to unstack at this point, as the location and name of the op may need to be changed for both PRs...

[alexarice]

I'm not sure I understand unstacking. To me it makes sense to fix up the other PR, get it merged, then rebase/remake this one

[superlopuh]

Maybe it's just that they have conflicts that makes it confusing, it's just that I looked at this PR and commented here on something that should actually be changed in the other PR.

[alexarice]

By unstack did you mean make the 2 PRs into 1 PR?

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[superlopuh]

Yep sorry I thought that's what you meant.

[alexarice]

For some reason I thought you meant to make 2 completely separate PRs which both add the new function separately, sorry again for the confusion

[alexarice]

The diff here isn't correct, I'll sort it out

[superlopuh]

That's my bad for assuming what you meant!

[alexarice]

Diff looks better now