Run time vs. state

[Scott Baden]

In the overview section we make a big deal about how it's more correct to talk about state rather than a upc++ run time. But on lines 1392-3 (Chapter 9, progress) we say

Progress in UPC++ refers to how the calling application allows the UPC++ internal run time to advance the state of its outstanding asynchronous operations.

We use the word "runtime" freely throughout the spec. We should clarify at the start that our use of the word run time is an abuse of the notation, or change the word "runtime" to "state" throughout the document.

[Dan Bonachea]

I propose we fix this by striking the overview sentence that makes this sound like an important distinction:

It is for this reason that we try to refer to the UPC++ state instead of the more loaded term runtime.

The literature uses "runtime" as a nebulous term (eg see this early paper), and there's no strong correlation between "runtime" and "hidden threads of execution". The sentence right before this one makes it clear UPC++ does not use hidden progress threads, so IMO there's already no ambiguity here, and no reason we should avoid the term runtime.

[Dan Bonachea]

fix issue #99: remove a confusing overview sentence

→ <<cset e4f94bc95887>>