javascript equivalent way of passing variable to anonymous function - javascript

In php we can do something like this:
$foo = 1;
$bar = 2;
$fn = function() use ($foo, $bar) {
return $foo;
};
$foo = 3;
echo $fn(); // gives 1
How to do it in javascript?
I try it like this, but failed:
var foo = 1;
var bar = 2;
var fn = function() { return foo; }.bind(foo,bar);
foo = 3;
console.log(fn()); // gives 3, instead of 1

bind is a method to explicitly define the this value and the values passed to the initial arguments of the function.
The arguments that can be passed to a function are defined when the function is created.
var fn = function(foo) { console.log(foo) }
JavaScript doesn't have any features to modify what arguments a function accepts after it has been created.
The scope of a function is also defined when it is created and can't be changed later. If you don't shadow foo with an argument name, then it will read foo from the scope it is defined in.

var foo = 1;
var fn = function(foo) { return foo; }.bind({}, foo);
foo = 3;
console.log(fn());
or through context
var foo = 1;
var fn = function() { return this.foo; }.bind({foo});
foo = 3;
console.log(fn());

Related

Javascript accessing scope by using bind

why this logs 1 and not 2 ? i am trying to pass this scope to initData function but no success. after running init i should trigger iniData but this should refer to the object itself not to a new scope
let startFunction = function (){
let initData = () => {
this.x = 2
}
return {
x:1,
init:initData.bind(this)
};
};
obj=startFunction()
obj.init();
console.log(obj.x); // should be 2
update:
let startFunction = function (){
let initData = function(){
this.x = 2
}
return {
x:1,
init:initData
};
};
obj=startFunction()
obj.init();
console.log(obj.x); // should be 2
and why this works ? shouldn't the function create a new scope ?
There are two issues here. The first issue is that arrow functions are immutably bound to their execution context. Function.prototype.bind has no effect on an arrow function. The second issue here is what this refers to when you call startFunction. When you invoke a function freely, without a binding to a particular object, this refers to the object in which the function is invoked. So this refers to the global object in initData permanently.
So let's think about the value of obj and the global object's x value after each line.
After obj=startFunction:
// global x is undefined
// obj
{
x: 1,
init: initData // with the same binding to the global object
}
After obj.init(), initData sets the global object's x value to 2:
// global x is 2
// obj
{
x: 1,
init: initData // with the same binding to the global object
}
Problem you are facing is the x in the object has nothing to do with the this.x that is being assigned in the init method. You need to set an object and in the init code adjust that object.
let startFunction = function() {
const initData = () => {
data.x = 2
};
var data = {
x: 1,
init: initData,
};
return data;
};
const obj = startFunction()
obj.init();
console.log(obj.x);
Better solution, use a proper class.
class MyClass {
x = 1;
init() {
this.x = 2;
}
}
const obj = new MyClass();
obj.init();
console.log(obj.x);
class MyClass2 {
x = 1;
constructor() {
this.x = 2;
}
}
const obj2 = new MyClass2();
console.log(obj2.x);

Why is the 'this' value different in Javascript?

var obj = {
a: 2,
}
var a = 3;
const func = () => {
console.log(this.a);
}
function test() {
setTimeout(func, 100);
}
function test2() {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(this.a);
}, 100);
}
test.call(obj); //3
test2.call(obj); //2
It seemed that the test and test2 are the same, but the returned result is different, what's the problem with 'this'?
with test arrow function, this will refer to the window object, and as var a = 3, the a will be assigned as a property to the window, it will be like
window.a
But in test2 this will refer to the obj object.

How to global a js var in a function?

It is possible to global a variable inside a function, if not, how can I access a var in function b from function a.
var money;
var moneyInput = document.getElementById('input');
function check(){
if (moneyInput.value == "") {
money = 100;
}
function hit() {
document.write(money) // will this money var be 100 or undefined?
}
Just declare that variable outside function and then use it inside of that function.
P.S Please, post some code that you tried already.
let a = 5;
let b = 0; // Declare global variable
function printAB(_b) {
b = _b; // Set new value through this function
console.log(a, b);
}
function printBC() {
let c = 7;
console.log(b, c); // Get b variable
}
printBC(); // 0, 7 // b = 0
printAB(2); // 5, 2
printBC(); // 2, 7 // b = 2
Edit
With code you provided, answer is simple. Variable money can be equal 100 or be undefined, that depends if function hit will be called before function check.
If you assign a value to an undeclared variable in a function it will be created as a global variable.
You should declare the variable outside of the function scope:
var myGlobalVar = "foo";
function a(){
var myLocalVar = 'bar';
alert(myGlobalVar); //shows foo
alert(myLocalVar); //shows bar
}
function b(){
var myLocalVar = 'baz';
alert(myGlobalVar); //shows foo too
alert(myLocalVar); //shows baz
}
Assign a variable without using var, let, or const
var foo = 'bar';
function fn() {
console.log(foo);
bar = 'xyz';
}
fn()
console.log(bar)
Repl: https://repl.it/languages/javascript
You can assign a value to the global object ( window in browsers):
function a(){
window.test="test";
}
function b(){
console.log(test);
}
a(),b();
Declaring the variable on the outer scope and using it inside should solve your problem. However if you insist on creating a variable on the global scope you can do the following;
window.VAR_NAME = 'foo';
By doing so you are actually creating a global variable VAR_NAME and it now has the value foo.
/* 1 */
var a = 'sample text';
function one() {
a = 'modified text';
}
function two() {
console.log(a);
}
one();
two();
/* 2 */
function one(callback) {
var a = 'sample text callback';
callback(a);
}
function two() {
one(function(a) {
console.log(a);
});
}
two();
/* 3 */
var one = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var a = 'sample text promise';
resolve(a);
});
function two() {
one.then(function(a) {
console.log(a);
});
}
two();
/* 4 */
var myGlobals = {};
function one() {
myGlobals.a = 'sample text';
}
function two() {
console.log(myGlobals.a);
}
one();
two();

Calling inner function in Nested Scopes in JavaScript

I'm learning JS and am wondering, is there a way to return the function bar() or buz() by without returning foo()? For example, if I wanted to return the function bar(); to get 2, could I do that? Would it be something like foo().bar(); ?
// Nested Scopes
function foo() { // can only access itself
var a = 1;
function bar() { // access to foo(), not buz()
var b = 2;
function buz() { // access to bar() and foo()
var c = 3;
console.log(a, b, c); // 1, 2, 3
}
buz();
console.log(a, b); // 1, 2
}
bar();
console.log(a); // 1
}
foo(); // 1
Certainly. You can return an object at each stage which holds the function, or you can return the function itself. This utilizes what's called a closure.
function foo() {
var a = 1;
function bar() {
var b = 2;
function buz() {
var c = 3;
console.log(a, b, c);
}
console.log(a, b);
return { buz: buz };
}
console.log(a);
return { bar: bar };
}
foo().bar().buz();
You can do this, but it’s quite over-complicated.
The basic syntax is:
foo().bar().buz();
Where-ever you add another () after an existing one, it’ll print that level out. See the snippet for examples.
// Nested Scopes
function foo() { // can only access itself
var a = 1;
function bar() { // access to foo(), not buz()
var b = 2;
function buz() { // access to bar() and foo()
var c = 3;
return (function() {
console.log(a, b, c);
});
}
return (function() {
var tmp = function() {
console.log(a, b);
return {
buz: buz
};
};
tmp.buz = buz;
return tmp;
})();
}
return (function() {
var tmp = function() {
console.log(a);
return {
bar: bar
};
};
tmp.bar = bar;
return tmp;
})();
}
foo().bar().buz(); // (nothing)
foo().bar()().buz(); // 1, 2
foo()().bar()().buz(); // 1 // 1, 2
foo()().bar().buz()(); // 1 // 1, 2, 3
foo()().bar()().buz()(); // 1 // 1, 2 // 1, 2, 3
This kind of abuses the fact that you can assign properties to anything in JavaScript, including functions.
foo is a function that refers to the outer foo.
foo() is another function that refers to that inner tmp which has a bar property that refers to the inner bar function.
foo()() actually calls that inner tmp function but still leaves you with an object that has a bar property that again refers to the inner bar function.
This approach is basically the same for bar.
For buz, however, (something).buz() is just a function, without any extra properties and (something).buz()() doesn’t return anything, because that’s the final level.
you do this more like setting a variable.
var foo = {
bar: function() {
return 3;
}
}
console.log(foo.bar());

difference between these two ways of creating a 'private' property in Javascript

I am trying to simulate a simple Holder "class" in JavaScript with a "private" property that holds something and "public" getter and setter "methods" to access the value.
The approach exhibited by HolderA below is mentioned e.g. here. The other approach I more or less arrived at by mutation but I guess it must be recognizable as an idiom as well. I like it because it contains no this or prototype stuff and seems very elementary and functional. Is there a difference between the two?
The test code (I run it under nodejs) seems to suggest that the two approaches are identical except that in the first case the objects I get have typeof object whereas in the second function.
var test = function(o) {
var initialValueCorrect = (!(typeof o.getX()==='undefined'))&&(o.getX()===0);
var VALUE_TO_SET = 10;
o.setX(VALUE_TO_SET);
var getSetWorks = o.getX()===VALUE_TO_SET;
var xIsPrivate = (typeof o.x === 'undefined');
var xHasCorrectValue;
if (!xIsPrivate)
xHasCorrectValue = o.x === VALUE_TO_SET;
return {initialValueCorrect: initialValueCorrect,
getSetWorks : getSetWorks,
xIsPrivate: xIsPrivate,
xHasCorrectValue: xHasCorrectValue};
};
var HolderA = (function() {
function foo(x) {
this.getX = function() {
return x;
};
this.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
};
return foo;
})();
var createHolderB = (function() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
}
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
})();
var objects = [{object: new HolderA(0), name: "approach with constructor-invocation and 'this'"},
{object: createHolderB(0), name: "approach with normal function invocation and closed variable"}];
for (var i = 0; i<objects.length ; i++) {
var testResult = test(objects[i].object);
console.log('['+objects[i].name+']: the object is a: '+(typeof objects[i].object)
+'\n\n\t\t\t'+JSON.stringify(testResult)+'\n\n\n\n\n');
}
update
As Bergi has pointed out function createHolderB in my code above is plain wrong and only creates a singleton object. So, is not really a "constructor" function. To that end I've now created createHolderC which can be used to really create multiple objects with a hidden private property like this:
var objectC1 = createHolderC()(0);
Now, is there any material difference between HolderA and the createHolderC function or is the difference purely stylistic?
var createHolderC = function () {
return (function() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
};
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
})();
};
createHolderB does not create new holders like HolderA does. It's essentially a singleton pattern. You might also want to call it a module. Notice that createHolderB() === createHolderB.
createHolderC is still different from HolderA in that it returns function objects, not instances. You may see the differences better when you strip out the unnecessary IEFEs:
function HolderA(x) {
this.getX = function() {
return x;
};
this.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
// implicit `return this;` when called via `new`
}
function createHolderC() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
};
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
}
A typical factory would rather look like this:
function createHolderD(x) {
var foo = {};
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
}
(or even with return {getX: …, setX: …};), the only difference to HolderA is the prototypical inheritance then.
Basically both exhibits the private access behavior to the x variable. But the difference between those two are
Constructor function
var HolderA = (function() {
function foo(x) {
this.getX = function() {
return x;
};
this.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
};
return foo;
})();
This is a self executing function, where it returns Constructor foo.
That is the reason you are using new while creating this type of holder {object: new HolderA(0)
A function
var createHolderB = (function() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
}
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
})();
Even this is also a self executing function, but while execution it creates x variable and returns function foo, and foo access x by closure.
You are creating this type of holder just by normal function call object: createHolderB(0).
Both cases are really bad in practice.
If you're making closures (anonymous functions) that hold your "private variable" scope, it means you're creating those functions for every instance of the class. That costs memory and performance. I used to create classes like this, but then once I was making large number of instances and found out that it hits performance hard.
Just as in Python, make private variables private by some convention, like underscore in _name. Then you can break it for debug reasons (because variables in closure scope are not accessible).
This is how I would do it:
function MyClass(arg) {
this._privateVar = arg;
}
MyClass.prototype.getPrivateVar = function() {
return this._privateVar;
}
You can also make getters and setters:
Object.defineProperty(MyClass.prototype, "privateVar", {
get: function() {
return this._privateVar;
}
}
But don't try to push javascript into things it's not designed to, or you'll pay with performance, code readability and debugging complexity. Applies to other languages too.

Categories