|
Blue Forest http://www.lslnet.com at 8:28 on August 25, 2006
 "&_" And "&" What are the differences?
I often use :
…
Response.Write ( "" html> ")
Response.Write ( "the" head are ")
Response.Write ( "" title>Response Test</title> ")
Response.Write ( "" /head> ")
Response.Write ( "" body> ")
This approach is imported, but also often see :
<%
Response.Write ( "" html> "& ̲
"" Head are "& ̲
"" Title>Response Test</title> "& ̲
"" /head> "& ̲
"" Body> "& ̲
"" H1>Response Test</h1> "& ̲
"" Table "& ̲
"" Tr><td><b>First Name:</b></td><td> "& FirstName &" "/td></tr>" & ̲
…
"" Tr><td><b>Birth Date:</b></td><td> "BirthDate & &" "/td></tr>" & ̲
"" ShapeID="_x0000_i1025" DrawAspect="Content" ObjectID="_1127825915"> </o:OLEObject> "& ̲
"" /body> "& ̲
"" /html> ")
%>
Or
<%
Response.Write ( "" html> "& vbCRLF & ̲
"" Head are "& vbCRLF & ̲
"" Title>Response Test</title> "& vbCRLF & ̲
"" /head> "& VbCRLF & ̲
%>
This input, and Will & ̲ & vbCRLF & ̲ what it is, I tested for the role and does not seem to connect that way. |
"&_" Play the role of linking?
For connecting with the role.
Other firms can be seen only in the HTML source code for firms that connects website, if you look at the generated code will be clear. |
"&_" Play the role of linking?
Thank you. I have previously used in a non-HTML, I tested the following code :
<%
Response.write ( "" html> "& vbCRLF & ̲
"" Head are "& vbCRLF & ̲
"" Title> "& vbCRLF & ̲
"Lovely China" & vbCRLF & ̲
"" /title> "& VbCRLF & ̲
"" /head> "& VbCRLF & ̲
"" Body> "& vbCRLF & ̲
"I wish you coulde know how much I love" & vbCRLF & ̲
"" /body> "& VbCRLF & ̲
"" /html> "& VbCRLF)
%>
Output as HTML format :
"Html>
"Head are
"Title>
Lovely China
"/title>
"/head>
"Body>
I wish you know how much I love coulde
"/body>
"/html>
Oh, a success.
I want to ask about. What is the difference between that and &_ &? |
"&_" Play the role of linking?
&_ Not be replaced & implementation, I remember & links at the country, they would tell us if there is any difference between the following? Humbly ask that the Internet is still not the issue ah. |
| I was looking for the answer to a question, that need answering. |
&_ Trip can be more connected, namely :
[code]
"String" &_
"String2" &_
"String3"
[/code]
This is legitimate, not less ___ for the trip.
[code]
"String" & "string2" & "string3"
[/code]
This not only increases ̲
PS : upstairs, please do not reply to meaningless version of the technology. |
| This is the original way, I would like to thank the Bamboo. |
|
