lrm | laravel remote manager : useful laravel package | SSH Utils library

Test is undefined; I'll presume you mean Tests.

Table is not a string type; it is an access type. To reference the value that an access value designates, one uses .all:

Your plot_model object includes a data.frame with a variable named '.predictor.', which holds the facet labels. You can change the facet labels as follows using the labeller function:

Per my comments, try it like this:

You can try this script expdp_powershell.ps1

For example

Looks as though you’re instantiating the generic within your Main. This is not 'at library level'.

Instantiate as a library level package, should work better. This needs to go in a file (in this case) my_util_pool.ads:

Or is it just the case that because an alias is a declarative item, it must exist in an declarative region?

Yes. A design file is comprised of one or more design units and an entity declaration is a design unit. A design unit is comprised of one or more nested declarative regions. The root declarative region (with an optional context clause encompasses the design unit itself and any subordinate secondary design units.

There's no delimiter for declarative regions other than the end of a design unit.

But given that an alias takes on the same class as the aliased item, surely it should be allowed in the same region?

No. A declaration doesn't take effect (it's name doesn't become visible) until after the declaration is complete. Here, after end [entity_simple_name] ;.

A new design unit begins with optional context items (beginning with reserved words library, use or context) followed by a primary unit declaration or secondary unit body (indicated by one of the reserved words entity, architecture, package, configuration, context (here ignoring PSL, tool directives and comments).

Design units are independently analyzed.

The classes of aliases are object and non-object. An alias declaration targets the declaration of a named entity (and some name declarations are implicit).

Is this worthy of a request for the next LRM?

This question is a request for a subjective opinion without a clear use case (providing examples, particularly in a design hierarchy). The reason isn't clear. What work are you trying to avoid?

As an opinion otherwise, no.

There are also parts of the standard that are poorly supported by synthesis vendors that already address modifying binding from the default by exception (configuration declarations containing context specifications or component instantiation with the reserved word configuration).

The built-in net object like wire, tri, wand, etc. cannot have a data type other than those made up from the 4-state type logic. The built-in nets all have pre-defined resolution functions for when there are multiple drivers.

An inout is expected to have multiple drivers, so only nets are allowed on that kind of port. If you want a real datatype on a net, it needs to be defined with user defined nettype so a resolution function can be associated with the net. i.e. do you want the individual drivers to be averaged, summed, max value, etc. There are some examples in the 1800-2017, and most tools provide these as readily available packages.

I think the data has to be specified before the grouping variable.

Try this validate(lrm.model, group = DT2$internal_model_rating_number, B=200, bw=T)

You also had a small typo (try data = DT2 instead of DT.)

If you don't want to specify the data again, you can use attach(DT2) and then run your model.

I think you're missing a children...you want the child elements (options) of the select.

Also it's generally good practice to assign something like getElementById to a variable, rather than to continue calling it over and over again.