Attempting to rename clocked.

[HansOlsson]

Closes #3091

[henrikt-ma]

I couldn't spot any obvious mistakes, but I think we need a reviewer with a deeper understanding of the chapter.

[henrikt-ma]

By the way, after this PR is merged, I suggest that we fix the remaining non-sentence-based line breaks in these chapters. It's too late to do it when one wants to make a change like this PR, as it would have become too hard to spot the actual changes of terminology among all white-space changes.

[HansOlsson]

Would be good with a review of this.

[henrikt-ma]

The only problem I could spot was that a discretized partition is still sometimes referred to as a clocked partition.

[henrikt-ma]

Please also resolve merge conflicts.

[HansOlsson]

Please also resolve merge conflicts.

Now resolved.

[henrikt-ma]

I find this sentence strange:

From the view of the clocked partition, the continuous-time partition is discretized and the discretized continuous-time variables have only a value at a clock tick.

• I am missing the reference in the clocked partition, suggesting that we say a clocked partition instead.
• Are we really only speaking of the clocked partitions here, excluding the discretized partitions? (Since the meaning of clocked partition is being changed, the meaning of this sentence has also been changed.)

[HansOlsson]

From the view of the clocked partition, the continuous-time partition is discretized and t...

That should just be other partitions.

[henrikt-ma]

I am generally totally in favor of this cleanup, but it is a very tricky PR to review. Not only should it be reviewed by an expert on the synchronous features (which I am not), but to make a really thorough review (which I haven't) of just the implementation of the new terminology, one would need to read the entire chapter carefully in its new form.

[eshmoylova]

Looks good overall. Some uncertainties, but I don't want to mark them as "request changes" so adding the review as "Comment."

[HansOlsson]

I think all comments have now been handled.

[HansOlsson]

@henrikt-ma can you review this one, or dismiss your review in some way if you don't find it relevant?

[henrikt-ma]

Just pointing out two very minor things to fix this time around. After that, I plan to approve based on the gut feeling that this is now so good that it is a clear overall improvement over the old state, even if I can't convince myself that I have a firm grip on the effect on the entire chapter.

[henrikt-ma]

After all these iterations I've at least convinced myself that this hard-to-review PR takes the chapter to a better state than it was before. Once we've become used to the new terminology, it will probably be easier to detect any remaining mistakes in its application.