On the capacitor, why did you remove the address input from the original design? The point was previously to be able to have variable clocks in simulation and since it had already been implemented I don’t see why it would have been removed :(
(I’m a bit biased: I was the one to suggest the capacitor object so I’m more asking for peace of mind, sorry!)
TBH, I think this is better and more flexible. before you could only have 256 discreet delays, the values of which you couldn't change. now you can have any number, and can be finely tuned. you can still achieve the end result as the original proposal by using multiple pulsers and a demux or something. (though, I question if you need 256 as opposed to like, eight)
gotta not take it personally when contributing to someone else's open source project and it doesn't end up exactly how you may have originally intended.
I thought the variable capacitance input was a cool idea, but decided to change it firstly since constant inputs have not yet been implemented. This means that if you're using the component as part of a flip-flop design (as a random example) then you'd either need every flip-flop to have an extra input to control the pulse width, or you'd have to 'hard-code' that input out of nand gates, both of which feel a bit clunky.
I could have waited until I've figured out how I want to handle constant inputs, but then I also didn't see a huge advantage to having the value be logic-configurable. My thinking was that you want to have the pulse width set to the minimum value that gives consistent behaviour with your design, and so once you've calculated that, it would be something that's typically left constant rather than configured during operation.
I have no doubt that some use-cases exist where the variable input would be more helpful, but I think that the way it is now is most convenient for the most common cases.
