un | unframework for universal uncomponents - use | Frontend Framework library

For me, this is a natural fit for awk:

Since you are benchmarking in a top-level scope you have to interpolate variables in @btime with $ so the way to benchmark your code is:

You don't need to create your dictionary from the corpus - instead, create a single dictionary entry for your locality list, and look that up to generate a count of each locality. You can then count them by compiling the dfm, and then converting the feature of that dictionary key into a logical to get the vector you want.

You shouldn't be mounting your volumes. These lines should be removed from your docker-compose

This question is really too big for Stack Overflow.

But one way of answering it is to say that if you can mechanically translate some variant of λ-calculus into some other language, then you can reduce the question of how you might compile λ-calculus to asking how do you turn that substrate language into machine language for some physical machine: how do you compile that substrate language, in other words. That should give an initial hint as to why this question is too big.

Fortunately λ-calculus is pretty simple, so the translation into a substrate language is also pretty easy to do, especially if you pick a substrate language which has first-class functions and macros: you can simply compile λ-calculus into a tiny subset of that language. Chances are that the substrate language will have operations on numbers, strings, and all sorts of other types of thing, but your compiler won't target any of those: it will just turn functions in the λ-calculus into functions in the underlying language, and then rely on that language to compile them. If the substrate language doesn't have first-class functions you'll have to work harder, so I'll pick one that does.

So here is a specific example of doing that. I have a toy language called 'oa' (or in fact 'oa/normal' which is an untyped, normal-order λ-calculus. It represents functions in a slight variant of the traditional Lisp representation: (λ x y) is λx.y. Function application is (x y).

oa then get gets turned into Scheme (actually Racket) roughly as follows.

First of all there are two operations it uses to turn normal-order semantics into Scheme's applicative-order semantics:

• (hold x) delays the evaluation of x – it is just a version of Scheme's delay which exists so I could instrument it to find bugs. Like delay, hold is not a function: it's a macro. If there were no macros the translation process would have to produce into the expression into which hold expands.
• (release* x) will force the held object made by hold and will do so until the object it gets is not a held object. release* is equivalent to an iterated force which keeps forcing until the thing is no longer a promise. Unlike hold, release* is a function, but as with hold it could simply be expanded out into inline code if you wanted to make the output of the conversion larger and harder to read.

So then here is how a couple of λ-calculus expressions get turned into Scheme expressions. Here I'll use λ to mean 'this is a oa/λ-calculus-world thing' and lambda to mean 'this is a Scheme world thing'.

As I expected, the XML and XSLT parameters should be switched.

Here is how SSIS XML Task, operation XSLT should be configured.

XSLT

You never shared the desired output. Here is my wild guess.

The problem is here:

Its your execute="shopSitePanel" that is causing the "Required" trigger to happen. For the SelectOne you just want to show or hide the value not to process it also. Change your code to this...