Clean up formatting related to 'SolverMethod' and 'solverMethod'

The use \lstinline!SolverMethod! is meant to be a sloppy way of referring to the type defined in ModelicaServices.

chapters/synchronous.tex

@@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ \subsection{Solver Methods}\label{solver-methods}
    "discretized continuous-time partition."
 \end{lstlisting}
 
-If a tool supports one of the integrators of SolverMethod, it must use
+If a tool supports one of the integrators of \lstinline!SolverMethod!, it must use
 the solver method name of above.
 
 \begin{nonnormative}
@@ -1201,22 +1201,22 @@ \subsection{Solver Methods}\label{solver-methods}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{l|l}
 \hline
-\tablehead{SolverMethod} & \tablehead{Solution method} \\
+\tablehead{\lstinline!SolverMethod!} & \tablehead{Solution method} \\
 \hline
 \hline
-\lstinline!ExplicitEuler! &
+\lstinline!"ExplicitEuler"! &
 $\begin{aligned}
 x_{i} &:= x_{i-1}+h\cdot\dot{x}_{i-1}\\
 \dot{x}_{i} &:= f(x_i,u_{c,i},u_{d,i},t_i)
 \end{aligned}$
 \\ \hline
-\lstinline!ExplicitMidPoint2! &
+\lstinline!"ExplicitMidPoint2"! &
 $\begin{aligned}
 x_{i} &:= x_{i-1}+h\cdot f(x_{i-1}+\frac{1}{2}\cdot h \cdot\dot{x}_{i-1},\frac{u_{c,i-1}+u_{c,i}}{2},u_{d,i-1},t_{i-1}+\tfrac{1}{2}\cdot h)\\
 \dot{x}_{i} &:= f(x_i,u_{c,i},u_{d,i},t_i)
 \end{aligned}$
 \\ \hline
-\lstinline!ExplicitRungeKutta4! &
+\lstinline!"ExplicitRungeKutta4"! &
 $\begin{aligned}
 k_1 &:= h\cdot \dot{x}_{i-1}\\
 k_2 &:= h\cdot f(x_{i-1}+\tfrac{1}{2}k_1,\frac{u_{c,i-1}+u_{c,i}}{2},u_{d,i-1},t_{i-1}+\tfrac{1}{2}\cdot h)\\
@@ -1227,15 +1227,15 @@ \subsection{Solver Methods}\label{solver-methods}
 \end{aligned}$
 \\ \hline
 % Vertical positioning of the \multirow is ugly.  Any better ideas?
-\multirow[c]{2}{*}[-0.7em]{\lstinline!ImplicitEuler!} & Equation system with unknowns: $x_i$, $\dot{x}_i$\\
+\multirow[c]{2}{*}[-0.7em]{\lstinline!"ImplicitEuler"!} & Equation system with unknowns: $x_i$, $\dot{x}_i$\\
 &
 $\begin{aligned}
 x_{i} &= x_{i-1}+h\cdot\dot{x}_i\\
 \dot{x}_{i} &= f(x_i,u_{c,i},u_{d,i},t_i)
 \end{aligned}$
 \\ \hline
 % Vertical positioning of the \multirow is ugly.  Any better ideas?
-\multirow[c]{2}{*}[-0.7em]{\lstinline!ImplicitTrapezoid!} & Equation system with unknowns: $x_i$, $\dot{x}_i$\\
+\multirow[c]{2}{*}[-0.7em]{\lstinline!"ImplicitTrapezoid"!} & Equation system with unknowns: $x_i$, $\dot{x}_i$\\
 &
 $\begin{aligned}
 x_{i} &= x_{i-1}+\tfrac{1}{2}h\cdot(\dot{x}_i+\dot{x}_{i-1})\\
@@ -1257,7 +1257,7 @@ \subsection{Solver Methods}\label{solver-methods}
 equation
   der(x) = -x + u
 \end{lstlisting}
-shall be transformed to a clocked discretized continuous-time partition with the ExplicitEuler method.  The following model is a manual implementation:
+shall be transformed to a clocked discretized continuous-time partition with the \lstinline!"ExplicitEuler"! method.  The following model is a manual implementation:
 \begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica]
   input Real u;
   parameter Real x_start = 1;
@@ -1291,10 +1291,7 @@ \subsection{Solver Methods}\label{solver-methods}
 
 \subsection{Associating a Solver to a Partition}\label{associating-a-solver-to-a-partition}
 
-A \lstinline!solverMethod! can be associated to a clock with the overloaded Clock
-constructor Clock(c, solverMethod), see \cref{clock-constructors}. If a clock is
-associated with a clocked partition and a \lstinline!solverMethod! is associated
-with this clock, then the partition is integrated with it.
+A \lstinline!SolverMethod! can be associated to a clock with the overloaded \lstinline!Clock! constructor \lstinline!Clock($c$, solverMethod=$\ldots$)!, see \cref{clock-constructors}.  If a clock is associated with a clocked partition and a \lstinline!SolverMethod! is associated with this clock, then the partition is integrated with it.
 
 \begin{example}
 \begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica]
@@ -1313,13 +1310,13 @@ \subsection{Associating a Solver to a Partition}\label{associating-a-solver-to-a
 
 \subsection{Inferencing of solverMethod}\label{inferencing-of-solvermethod}
 
-If a solverMethod is not explicitly associated with a partition, it is
+If a \lstinline!solverMethod! is not explicitly associated with a partition, it is
 inferred with a similar mechanism as for sub-clock inferencing, see
 \cref{sub-clock-inferencing}.
 
 For each sub-clock partition we build a set corresponding to this sub-clock partition.
-These sets are then merged as follows: for each set without a specified solverMethod we merge it
-with sets connected to it (these may contain a solverMethod); and this is repeated until it is not possible to merge more sets.
+These sets are then merged as follows: for each set without a specified \lstinline!solverMethod! we merge it
+with sets connected to it (these may contain a \lstinline!solverMethod!); and this is repeated until it is not possible to merge more sets.
 The sets connected in this way should be part of the same base-clock partition and connected through a sub-clock conversion operator
 (\lstinline!subSample!, \lstinline!superSample!, \lstinline!shiftSample!, \lstinline!backSample!, or \lstinline!noClock!).
 
@@ -1328,9 +1325,9 @@ \subsection{Inferencing of solverMethod}\label{inferencing-of-solvermethod}
 \item If the set contains continuous time-equations:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item If this set contains no \lstinline!solverMethod! it is an error.
-\item Otherwise we use the specified solverMethod.
+\item Otherwise we use the specified \lstinline!solverMethod!.
 \end{itemize}
-\item If the set does not contain continuous time-equations there is no need for a solverMethod.
+\item If the set does not contain continuous time-equations there is no need for a \lstinline!solverMethod!.
 \end{itemize}
 
 \begin{example}