"Jonathan Dodds" <NO_REPLY> wrote in message
news:uvqLTZ%23KFHA.2796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In "VBScript and JScript Don't Mix, at least in ASP"
> <http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/contact.aspx> Eric Lippert wrote:
>
> Ideally you want the server side <SCRIPT> blocks to contain only global
> function definitions, and the <% %> blocks to contain only "inline" code.
>
>
> Why? Is this a convention or is there a difference between <script>
> element
> blocks and <% %> blocks that make the former better for functions and the
> latter better for inline?
>
> I'm trying to use object-oriented JavaScript in my ASP application. I have
> a
> constructor function and some prototype definitions. Here's an example
> from
> the JScript documentation:
>
> // circle.inc
>
> function Circle (xPoint, yPoint, radius) {
>    this.x = xPoint;  // The x component of the center of the circle.
>    this.y = yPoint;  // The y component of the center of the circle.
>    this.r = radius;  // The radius of the circle.
> }
> Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI;
> Circle.prototype.area = function () {
>    return this.pi * this.r * this.r;
> }
>
> What's not shown in this example is that the prototype can be used to
> create
> an inheritance chain.
>
> If I put this in a file and include it using a script element and my page
> is
> in JScript then the constructor is available in my <% %> blocks but the
> prototype assignments are missing (because they haven't been performed
> yet.)
>
> So I can change to using the SSI style include and change the included
> file
> to be one large <% %> block. This solves the problem for general pages
> (unless there's a penalty for having functions in a <% %> block) but now I
> can't reuse the same include files from global.asa.
>
> What's the rationale or reason for executing <script> in the page language
> and <% %> blocks in separate passes? I can see the issue when mixing
> different script languages but when everything is the same language? Why
> isn't <script runat="server"> just syntactic sugar for <% %>?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

"Jason Brown [MSFT]" <i-brj***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eJO8NEDLFHA.656@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> the two different script blocks are executed at different times, so it can
> cause problems, depending on what it is you're trying to accomplish. I
> believe aspfaq.com has an FAQ on this subject which explains it pretty
> clearly.
>
> I'm really not sure why it was done this way (the original ASP spec is
> pretty old now) but i think it's possible that very early ASP engine code
> used one or the other of the conventions and the other was "tacked on"
> later. It's an interesting question though, and I'll see what I can find
out
> on the subject.
>
>
> --
> Jason Brown
> Microsoft GTSC, IIS
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
>
> "Jonathan Dodds" <NO_REPLY> wrote in message
> news:uvqLTZ%23KFHA.2796@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > In "VBScript and JScript Don't Mix, at least in ASP"
> > <http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/contact.aspx> Eric Lippert wrote:
> >
> > Ideally you want the server side <SCRIPT> blocks to contain only global
> > function definitions, and the <% %> blocks to contain only "inline"
code.
> >
> >
> > Why? Is this a convention or is there a difference between <script>
> > element
> > blocks and <% %> blocks that make the former better for functions and
the
> > latter better for inline?
> >
> > I'm trying to use object-oriented JavaScript in my ASP application. I
have
> > a
> > constructor function and some prototype definitions. Here's an example
> > from
> > the JScript documentation:
> >
> > // circle.inc
> >
> > function Circle (xPoint, yPoint, radius) {
> >    this.x = xPoint;  // The x component of the center of the circle.
> >    this.y = yPoint;  // The y component of the center of the circle.
> >    this.r = radius;  // The radius of the circle.
> > }
> > Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI;
> > Circle.prototype.area = function () {
> >    return this.pi * this.r * this.r;
> > }
> >
> > What's not shown in this example is that the prototype can be used to
> > create
> > an inheritance chain.
> >
> > If I put this in a file and include it using a script element and my
page
> > is
> > in JScript then the constructor is available in my <% %> blocks but the
> > prototype assignments are missing (because they haven't been performed
> > yet.)
> >
> > So I can change to using the SSI style include and change the included
> > file
> > to be one large <% %> block. This solves the problem for general pages
> > (unless there's a penalty for having functions in a <% %> block) but now
I
> > can't reuse the same include files from global.asa.
> >
> > What's the rationale or reason for executing <script> in the page
language
> > and <% %> blocks in separate passes? I can see the issue when mixing
> > different script languages but when everything is the same language? Why
> > isn't <script runat="server"> just syntactic sugar for <% %>?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>