Is there something that I'm missing that would allow item to log as an object with a parameter, but when I try to access that parameter, it's undefined?
What I've tried so far:
console.log(item) => { title: "foo", content: "bar" } , that's fine
console.log(typeof item) => object
console.log(item.title) => "undefined"
I'll include some of the context just in case it's relevant to the problem.
var TextController = function(myCollection) {
this.myCollection = myCollection
}
TextController.prototype.list = function(req, res, next) {
this.myCollection.find({}).exec(function(err, doc) {
var set = new Set([])
doc.forEach(function(item) {
console.log(item) // Here item shows the parameter
console.log(item.title) // "undefined"
set.add(item.title)
})
res.json(set.get());
})
}
Based on suggestion I dropped debugger before this line to check what item actually is via the node repl debugger. This is what I found : http://hastebin.com/qatireweni.sm
From this I tried console.log(item._doc.title) and it works just fine.. So, this seems more like a mongoose question now than anything.
There are questions similar to this, but they seem to be related to 'this' accessing of objects or they're trying to get the object outside the scope of the function. In this case, I don't think I'm doing either of those, but inform me if I'm wrong. Thanks
Solution
You can call the toObject method in order to access the fields. For example:
var itemObject = item.toObject();
console.log(itemObject.title); // "foo"
Why
As you point out that the real fields are stored in the _doc field of the document.
But why console.log(item) => { title: "foo", content: "bar" }?
From the source code of mongoose(document.js), we can find that the toString method of Document call the toObject method. So console.log will show fields 'correctly'. The source code is shown below:
var inspect = require('util').inspect;
...
/**
* Helper for console.log
*
* #api public
*/
Document.prototype.inspect = function(options) {
var isPOJO = options &&
utils.getFunctionName(options.constructor) === 'Object';
var opts;
if (isPOJO) {
opts = options;
} else if (this.schema.options.toObject) {
opts = clone(this.schema.options.toObject);
} else {
opts = {};
}
opts.minimize = false;
opts.retainKeyOrder = true;
return this.toObject(opts);
};
/**
* Helper for console.log
*
* #api public
* #method toString
*/
Document.prototype.toString = function() {
return inspect(this.inspect());
};
Make sure that you have defined title in your schema:
var MyCollectionSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
_id: String,
title: String
});
Try performing a for in loop over item and see if you can access values.
for (var k in item) {
console.log(item[k]);
}
If it works, it would mean your keys have some non-printable characters or something like this.
From what you said in the comments, it looks like somehow item is an instance of a String primitive wrapper.
E.g.
var s = new String('test');
typeof s; //object
s instanceof String; //true
To verify this theory, try this:
eval('(' + item + ')').title;
It could also be that item is an object that has a toString method that displays what you see.
EDIT: To identify these issues quickly, you can use console.dir instead of console.log, since it display an interactive list of the object properties. You can also but a breakpoint and add a watch.
Use findOne() instead of find().
The find() method returns an array of values, even if you have only one possible result, you'll need to use item[0] to get it.
The findOne method returns one object or none, then you'll be able to access its properties with no issues.
Old question, but since I had a problem with this too, I'll answer it.
This probably happened because you're using find() instead of findOne(). So in the end, you're calling a method for an array of documents instead of a document, resulting in finding an array and not a single document. Using findOne() will let you get access the object normally.
A better way to tackle an issue like this is using doc.toObject() like this
doc.toObject({ getters: true })
other options include:
getters: apply all getters (path and virtual getters)
virtuals: apply virtual getters (can override getters option)
minimize: remove empty objects (defaults to true)
transform: a transform function to apply to the resulting document before returning
depopulate: depopulate any populated paths, replacing them with their original refs (defaults to false)
versionKey: whether to include the version key (defaults to true)
so for example you can say
Model.findOne().exec((err, doc) => {
if (!err) {
doc.toObject({ getters: true })
console.log('doc _id:', doc._id) // or title
}
})
and now it will work
You don't have whitespace or funny characters in ' title', do you? They can be defined if you've quoted identifiers into the object/map definition. For example:
var problem = {
' title': 'Foo',
'content': 'Bar'
};
That might cause console.log(item) to display similar to what you're expecting, but cause your undefined problem when you access the title property without it's preceding space.
I think using 'find' method returns an array of Documents.I tried this and I was able to print the title
for (var i = 0; i < doc.length; i++) {
console.log("iteration " + i);
console.log('ID:' + docs[i]._id);
console.log(docs[i].title);
}
If you only want to get the info without all mongoose benefits, save i.e., you can use .lean() in your query. It will get your info quicker and you'll can use it as an object directly.
https://mongoosejs.com/docs/api.html#query_Query-lean
As says in docs, this is the best to read-only scenarios.
Are you initializing your object?
function MyObject()
{
this.Title = "";
this.Content = "";
}
var myo1 = new MyObject();
If you do not initialize or have not set a title. You will get undefined.
When you make tue query, use .lean() E.g
const order = await Order.findId("84578437").lean()
find returns an array of object , so to access element use indexing, like
doc[0].title
In my ReactJS application I am getting the mobile numbers as a string which I need to break and generate a link for them to be clickable on the mobile devices. But, instead I am getting [object Object], [object Object] as an output, whereas it should be xxxxx, xxxxx, ....
Also, I need to move this mobileNumbers function to a separate location where it can be accessed via multiple components.
For example: Currently this code is located in the Footer component and this code is also need on the Contact Us component.
...
function isEmpty(value) {
return ((value === undefined) || (value === null))
? ''
: value;
};
function mobileNumbers(value) {
const returning = [];
if(isEmpty(value))
{
var data = value.split(',');
data.map((number, index) => {
var trimed = number.trim();
returning.push(<NavLink to={`tel:${trimed}`} key={index}>{trimed}</NavLink>);
});
return returning.join(', ');
}
return '';
};
...
What am I doing wrong here?
Is there any way to create a separate file for the common constants / functions like this to be accessed when needed?
First question:
What am I doing wrong here?
The issue what you have is happening because of Array.prototype.join(). If creates a string at the end of the day. From the documentation:
The join() method creates and returns a new string by concatenating all of the elements in an array (or an array-like object), separated by commas or a specified separator string. If the array has only one item, then that item will be returned without using the separator.
Think about the following:
const navLinks = [{link:'randomlink'}, {link:'randomlink2'}];
console.log(navLinks.join(','))
If you would like to use concatenate with , then you can do similarly like this:
function mobileNumbers(value) {
if(isEmpty(value)) {
const data = value.split(',');
return data.map((number, index) => {
const trimed = number.trim();
return <NavLink to={`tel:${trimed}`} key={index}>{trimed}</NavLink>;
}).reduce((prev, curr) => [prev, ', ', curr]);
}
return [];
};
Then you need to use map() in JSX to make it work.
Second question:
Is there any way to create a separate file for the common constants / functions like this to be accessed when needed?
Usually what I do for constants is that I create in the src folder a file called Consts.js and put there as the following:
export default {
AppLogo: 'assets/logo_large.jpg',
AppTitle: 'Some app name',
RunFunction: function() { console.log(`I'm running`) }
}
Then simply import in a component when something is needed like:
import Consts from './Consts';
And using in render for example:
return <>
<h1>{Consts.AppTitle}</h1>
</>
Similarly you can call functions as well.
+1 suggestion:
Array.prototype.map() returns an array so you don't need to create one as you did earlier. From the documentation:
The map() method creates a new array populated with the results of calling a provided function on every element in the calling array.
I hope this helps!
I've been adopting ReactJS + Redux in my projects for a couple of years. I often end up in asynchronous situations where I need my component to wait for the state to be updated to render. Normally the simple logic !this.props.isFetching ? <Component /> : "Loading..." is enough.
However there are cases where I need to check for the state of an array that is embedded in the state object. In these cases, most of my components end up looking like this:
renderPostAuthor = () => {
if (!!this.props.postDetails.author) {
return this.props.postDetails.author[0].name;
} else {
return (
<div>
<StyledTitle variant="subheading" gutterBottom color="primary">
Loading...
</StyledTitle>
</div>
);
}
};
Is this use of the !! notation a good pattern / practice in ReactJS?
UPDATE: Thanks for the responses, and they are all valid. Perhaps, to clarify my question further, note that this.props.postDetails is a state itself that contains a number of objects and arrays. Therefore the problem is that if I omit the !! and this.props.postDetails isn't instantiated yet, and hence contains no arrays such as author[], I get the undefined error.
This has much more to do with just JavaScript in general than with React.
No, that use of !! isn't particularly useful. This:
if (!!this.props.postDetails.author) {
is the same as this:
if (this.props.postDetails.author) {
Neither of them means that author contains an array with at least one entry, which your next line of code is relying on. To do that, add .length or, with your particular example, probably [0] instead (in case author had an entry, but that entry was a falsy value):
if (this.props.postDetails.author[0]) {
If author may be null or undefined, we need to do two checks:
if (this.props.postDetails.author && this.props.postDetails.author[0]) {
Since we're going to use the result, it may be best to save the result to a variable or constant:
const firstAuthor = this.props.postDetails.author && this.props.postDetails.author[0];
if (firstAuthor) {
return firstAuthor.name;
}
Example of the current code throwing an error:
console.log("Running");
const author = [];
if (!!author) {
console.log(author[0].name);
} else {
console.log("No Author");
}
Example of checking [0] when we know author won't be null/falsy:
console.log("Running");
const author = [];
if (author[0]) {
console.log(author[0].name);
} else {
console.log("No Author");
}
Example of the double-check when author may be null/falsy:
console.log("Running");
const author = null;
if (author && author[0]) {
console.log(author[0].name);
} else {
console.log("No Author");
}
Example of saving and using the result:
function example(author) {
const firstAuthor = author && author[0];
if (firstAuthor) {
return firstAuthor.name;
} else {
return "Loading...";
}
}
console.log(example(null)); // Loading...
console.log(example([])); // Loading...
console.log(example([{name:"Harlan Ellison"}])); // "Harlan Ellison" (RIP)
There are times in react when using the !! is particularly helpful, but this is not the instance as stated above. The most common case I've found is when evaluating whether you're going to render array items or not. Often people will use the length of the array to decide whether to work with it or not since 0 length is a falsey boolean:
render () {
return this.props.array.length && <MyList items={this.props.array} />
}
Unfortunately this will return the 0 which will be rendered on the page. Since false will not render on the page a good alternative would be to use the double bang so that false is returned.
render () {
return !!this.props.array.length && <MyList items={this.props.array} />
}
I am learning JavaScript so that I can implement Google Tag Manager. I have a list of paths that I would like GTM to rewrite to something friendlier like so:
function() {
return document.location.pathname.indexOf('/l/138281/2016-06-07/dy383') > -1 ? 'Test Success' : undefined;
}
function() {
return document.location.pathname.indexOf('/l/138281/2016-04-03/55z63') > -1 ? 'SPP Contact Success' : undefined;
I'm just not sure how to combine these returns into one function (I currently have about 30 URLs to rewrite). I imagine I can use if/else, but advice would be quite lovely.
--edit--
URL Path Rewrite To
/test-638-jsj /test-success
/spp-zxcv-765 /spp-contact-success
/foo-asdf-123 /foo
/foo-bar-987 /foo-bar
The return function mentioned above does this beautifully for an individual link. I just want to be able to rewrite a series of URLs in one function (or however it makes sense to do this most specifically). Hopefully that helps clarify.
Thanks!
It is always a great idea to structure your code: separate abstract functionality from the specific problem.
What you are actually doing is scannins strings for occurences of keywords and returning specific values if such a keyword has been found.
Therefore, you need a function performing the above computation and a JavaScript datastructure holding your keywords and their values (= Object):
// Return patterns[key] if any key is found in string, else return string:
function match(string, patterns) {
for (key of Object.keys(patterns)) {
if (string.indexOf(key) > -1) return patterns[key];
}
return string;
}
var patterns = {
'/l/138281/2016-06-07/dy383': 'Test Success',
'/l/138281/2016-04-03/55z63': 'SPP Contact Success'
}
console.log(match('/l/138281/2016-06-07/dy383', patterns)); // "Test Success"
console.log(match('/doesnotexist', patterns)); // "/doesnotexist"
console.log(match(document.location.pathname, patterns));
I'm using Javascript with jQuery. I'd like to implement out params. In C#, it would look something like this:
/*
* odp the object to test
* error a string that will be filled with the error message if odp is illegal. Undefined otherwise.
*
* Returns true if odp is legal.
*/
bool isLegal(odp, out error);
What is the best way to do something like this in JS? Objects?
function isLegal(odp, errorObj)
{
// ...
errorObj.val = "ODP failed test foo";
return false;
}
Firebug tells me that the above approach would work, but is there a better way?
The callback approach mentioned by #Felix Kling is probably the best idea, but I've also found that sometimes it's easy to leverage Javascript object literal syntax and just have your function return an object on error:
function mightFail(param) {
// ...
return didThisFail ? { error: true, msg: "Did not work" } : realResult;
}
then when you call the function:
var result = mightFail("something");
if (result.error) alert("It failed: " + result.msg);
Not fancy and hardly bulletproof, but certainly it's OK for some simple situations.
I think this is pretty much the only way (but I am not a hardcore JavaScript programmer ;)).
What you could also consider is to use a callback function:
function onError(data) {
// do stuff
}
function isLegal(odp, cb) {
//...
if(error) cb(error);
return false;
}
isLegal(value, onError);
Yes, as you yourself mentioned, objects are the best and only way to pass data by reference in JavaScript. I would keep your isLegal function as such and simply call it like this:
var error = {};
isLegal("something", error);
alert(error.val);
The answers I have seen so far aren't implementing out parameters in JavaScript, as they are used in C# (the out keyword). They are merely a workaround that returns an object in case of an error.
But what do you do if you really need out parameters?
Because Javascript doesn't directly support it, you need to build something that is close to C#'s out parameters. Take a look at this approach, I am emulating C#s DateTime.TryParse function in JavaScript. The out parameter is result, and because JavaScript doesn't provide an out keyword, I am using .value inside the function to pass the value outside the function (as inspired by MDN suggestion):
// create a function similar to C#'s DateTime.TryParse
var DateTime = [];
DateTime.TryParse = function(str, result) {
result.value = new Date(str); // out value
return (result.value != "Invalid Date");
};
// now invoke it
var result = [];
if (DateTime.TryParse("05.01.2018", result)) {
alert(result.value);
} else {
alert("no date");
};
Run the snippet and you'll see it works: It parses the str parameter into a Date and returns it in the result parameter. Note that result needs to be initialized as empty array [], before you call the function (it can also be an object{} depending on your needs). This is required because inside the function you "inject" the .value property.
Now you can use the pattern above to write a function as the one in your question (this also shows you how to emulate the new discard parameter known as out _ in C#: In JavaScript we're passing [] as shown below):
// create a function similar to C#'s DateTime.TryParse
var DateTime = [];
DateTime.TryParse = function(str, result) {
result.value = new Date(str); // out value
return (result.value != "Invalid Date");
};
// returns false, if odb is no date, otherwise true
function isLegal(odp, errorObj) {
if (DateTime.TryParse(odp, [])) { // discard result here by passing []
// all OK: leave errorObj.value undefined and return true
return true;
} else {
errorObj.value = "ODP failed test foo"; // return error
return false;
}
}
// now test the function
var odp = "xxx01.12.2018xx"; // invalid date
var errorObj = [];
if (!isLegal(odp, errorObj)) alert(errorObj.value); else alert("OK!");
What this example does is it uses the result parameter to pass an error message as follows:
errorObj.value = "ODP failed test foo"; // return error
If you run the example it will display this message in a popup dialog.
Note: Instead of using a discard parameter as shown above, in JavaScript you could also use a check for undefined, i.e. inside the function check for
if (result === undefined) {
// do the check without passing back a value, i.e. just return true or false
};
Then it is possible to omit result as a parameter completely if not needed, so you could invoke it like
if (DateTime.TryParse(odp)) {
// ... same code as in the snippet above ...
};
I am using a callback method (similar to Felix Kling's approach) to simulate the behavior of out parameters. My answer differs from Kling's in that the callback function acts as a reference-capturing closure rather than a handler.
This approach suffers from JavaScript's verbose anonymous function syntax, but closely reproduces out parameter semantics from other languages.
function isLegal(odp, out_error) {
//...
out_error("ODP failed test foo"); // Assign to out parameter.
return false;
}
var error;
var success = isLegal(null, function (e) { error = e; });
// Invariant: error === "ODP failed test foo".
there is another way JS can pass 'out' parameters. but i believe the best ones for your situation were already mentioned.
Arrays are also passed by reference, not value. thus just as you can pass an object to a function, and then set a property of the object in the function, and then return, and access that object's property, you can similarly pass an Array to a function, set some values of the array inside the function, and return and access those values outside the array.
so in each situation you can ask yourself, "is an array or an object better?"
I'm not going to post any code but what fails to be done here in these answers is to put rhyme to reason. I'm working in the native JS arena and the problem arose that some native API calls need to be transformed because we can't write to the parameters without ugly shameful hacks.
This is my solution:
// Functions that return parameter data should be modified to return
// an array whose zeroeth member is the return value, all other values
// are their respective 1-based parameter index.
That doesn't mean define and return every parameter. Only the
parameters that recieve output.
The reason for this approach is thus: Multiple return values may be needed for any number of procedures. This creates a situation where objects with named values (that ultimately will not be in sync with the lexical context of all operations), constantly need to be memorized in order to appropriately work with the procedure(s).
Using the prescribed method, you only have to know what you called, and where you should be looking rather than having to know what you are looking for.
There is also the advantage that "robust and stupid" alogrithms can be written to wrap around the desired procedure calls to make this operation "more transparent".
It would be wise to use an object, function, or an array (all of which are objects) as a "write-back-output" parameter, but I believe that if any extraneous work must be done, it should be done by the one writing the toolkit to make things easier, or broaden functionality.
This is a one for all answer for every occaision, that keeps APIs looking the way the should at first look, rather than appearing to be and having every resemblence of a hobble-cobbled weave of spaghetti code tapestry that cannot figure out if it is a definition or data.
Congratulations, and good luck.
I'm using the webkitgtk3 and interfaceing some native C Library procs. so this proven code sample might at least serve the purpose of illustration.
// ssize_t read(int filedes, void *buf, size_t nbyte)
SeedValue libc_native_io_read (SeedContext ctx, SeedObject function, SeedObject this_object, gsize argument_count, const SeedValue arguments[], SeedException *exception) {
// NOTE: caller is completely responsible for buffering!
/* C CODING LOOK AND FEEL */
if (argument_count != 3) {
seed_make_exception (ctx, exception, xXx_native_params_invalid,
"read expects 3 arguments: filedes, buffer, nbyte: see `man 3 read' for details",
argument_count
); return seed_make_undefined (ctx);
}
gint filedes = seed_value_to_int(ctx, arguments[0], exception);
void *buf = seed_value_to_string(ctx, arguments[1], exception);
size_t nbyte = seed_value_to_ulong(ctx, arguments[2], exception);
SeedValue result[3];
result[0] = seed_value_from_long(ctx, read(filedes, buf, nbyte), exception);
result[2] = seed_value_from_binary_string(ctx, buf, nbyte, exception);
g_free(buf);
return seed_make_array(ctx, result, 3, exception);
}
The following is approach i am using. And this is answer for this question. However code has not been tested.
function mineCoords( an_x1, an_y1 ) {
this.x1 = an_x1;
this.y1 = an_y1;
}
function mineTest( an_in_param1, an_in_param2 ) {
// local variables
var lo1 = an_in_param1;
var lo2 = an_in_param2;
// process here lo1 and lo2 and
// store result in lo1, lo2
// set result object
var lo_result = new mineCoords( lo1, lo2 );
return lo_result;
}
var lo_test = mineTest( 16.7, 22.4 );
alert( 'x1 = ' + lo_test.x1.toString() + ', y1 = ' + lo_test.y1.toString() );
The usual approach to the specific use case you outlined in Javascript, and in fact most high level languages, is to rely on Errors (aka exceptions) to let you know when something out of the ordinary has occurred. There's no way to pass a value type (strings, numbers etc) by reference in Javascript.
I would just do that. If you really need to feed custom data back to the calling function you can subclass Error.
var MyError = function (message, some_other_param)
{
this.message = message;
this.some_other_param = some_other_param;
}
//I don't think you even need to do this, but it makes it nice and official
MyError.prototype = Error;
...
if (something_is_wrong)
throw new MyError('It failed', /* here's a number I made up */ 150);
Catching exceptions is a pain, I know, but then again so is keeping track of references.
If you really really need something that approaches the behavior of out variables, objects are passed by reference by default, and can handily capture data from other scopes--
function use_out (outvar)
{
outvar.message = 'This is my failure';
return false;
}
var container = { message : '' };
var result = use_out(container );
console.log(container.message); ///gives the string above
console.log(result); //false
I think this goes a some ways towards answering your question, but I think your entire approach is broken from the start. Javascript supports so many much more elegant and powerful ways to get multiple values out of a function. Do some reading about generators, closures, hell even callbacks can be nice in certain situations-- look up continuation passing style.
My point with this whole rant is to encourage anyone reading this to adapt their programming style to the limitations and capabilities of the language they're using, rather than trying to force what they learned from other languages into it.
(BTW some people strongly recommend against closures because they cause evil side-effects, but I wouldn't listen to them. They're purists. Side effects are almost unavoidable in a lot of applications without a lot of tedious backtracking and stepping around cant-get-there-from-here obstacles. If you need them, keeping them all together in a neat lexical scope rather than scattered across a hellscape of obscure pointers and references sounds a lot better to me)
The main advantage of real output parameters is direct modification of one or more scalar variables in the scope of the caller. Among the approaches proposed in other answers, only callbacks satisfy this requirement:
function tryparse_int_1(s, cb)
{ var res = parseInt(s);
cb(res);
return !isNaN( res );
}
function test_1(s)
{ var /* inreger */ i;
if( tryparse_int_1( s, x=>i=x ) )
console.log(`String "${s}" is parsed as integer ${i}.`); else
console.log(`String "${s}" does not start with an integer.`);
}
test_1("47");
test_1("forty-seven");
In this case, passing each output parameter requires five extra characters to wrap its identifier into an anonymous setter function. It is neither very readable nor easy to type frequently, so one can resort to the single most interesting property of scripting languages—their ability to do magick, such as executing strings as code.
The following example implements an extended version of the integer-parsing function above, which now has two output parameters: the resulting integer and a flag indicating whether it is positive:
/* ------------ General emulator of output parameters ------------ */
function out_lit(v)
{ var res;
if( typeof(v) === "string" )
res = '"' + v.split('\"').join('\\\"') + '"'; else
res = `${v}`;
return res;
}
function out_setpar(col, name, value)
{ if( col.outs == undefined ) col.outs = [];
col.outs[name] = value;
}
function out_setret(col, value)
{ col.ret = value; }
function out_ret( col )
{ var s;
for(e in col.outs)
{ s = s + "," + e + "=" + out_lit( col.outs[e] ); }
if( col.ret != undefined )
{ s = s + "," + out_lit( col.ret ); }
return s;
}
/* -------- An intger-parsing function using the emulator -------- */
function tryparse_int_2 // parse the prefix of a string as an integer
( /* string */ s, // in: input string
/* integer */ int, // out: parsed integer value
/* boolean */ pos // out: whether the result is positive
)
{ var /* integer */ res; // function result
var /* array */ col; // collection of out parameters
res = parseInt(s);
col = [];
out_setpar( col, int, res );
out_setpar( col, pos, res > 0 );
out_setret( col, !isNaN( res ) );
return out_ret( col );
}
In this version, passing each output parameters requires two extra characters around its identifier to embed it into a string literal, plus six characters per invocation to evaluate the result:
function test_2(s)
{ var /* integer */ int;
var /* boolean */ pos;
if( !eval( tryparse_int_2( s, "int", "pos" ) ) )
{ console.log(`String "${s}" does not start with an integer.`); }
else
{ if( pos ) adj = "positive";
else adj = "non-positive";
console.log(`String "${s}" is parsed as a ${adj} integer ${int}.`);
}
}
test_2( "55 parrots" );
test_2( "-7 thoughts" );
test_2( "several balls" );
The output of the test code above is:
String "55 parrots" is parsed as a positive integer 55.
String "-7 thoughts" is parsed as a non-positive integer -7.
String "several balls" does not start with an integer.
This solution, however, has a deficiency: it cannot handle returns of non-basic types.
Perhaps a cleaner approach is the emulation of pointers:
// Returns JavaScript for the defintion of a "pointer" to a variable named `v':
// The identifier of the pointer is that of the variable prepended by a $.
function makeref(v)
{ return `var $${v} = {set _(val){${v}=val;},get _() {return ${v};}}`; }
// Calcualtes the square root of `value` and puts it into `$root`.
// Returns whether the operation has succeeded.
// In case of an error, stores error message in `$errmsg`.
function sqrt2
( /* in number */ value, /* value to take the root of */
/* out number */ $root , /* "pointer" to result */
/* out string */ $errmsg /* "pointer" to error message */
)
{ if( typeof( value ) !== "number" )
{ $errmsg._ = "value is not a number.";
return false;
}
if( value < 0 )
{ $errmsg._ = "value is negative.";
return false;
}
$root._ = Math.sqrt(value);
return true;
}
The following test code:
function test(v)
{ var /* string */ resmsg;
var /* number */ root ; eval( makeref( "root" ) );
var /* string */ errmsg; eval( makeref( "errmsg" ) );
if( sqrt2(v, $root, $errmsg) ) resmsg = `Success: ${root}`;
else resmsg = `Error: ${errmsg}`;
console.log(`Square root of ${v}: ` + resmsg );
}
test("s" );
test(-5 );
test( 1.44);
prints:
Square root of s: Error: value is not a number.
Square root of -5: Error: value is negative.
Square root of 1.44: Success: 1.2
"Pointers" created by this method are reusable in other functions and subsequent invocations of the same function. For example, you could define a function that appends strings:
// Append string `sep' to a string pointed to by $s, using `sep` as separator:
// $s shall not point to an undefined value.
function append($s, sep, val)
{ if( $s._ != '' ) $s._ += sep;
$s._ += val;
}
and use it thus:
const sep = ", "
var s; eval( makeref("s") );
s = '';
append( $s, sep, "one" );
append( $s, sep, "two" );
append( $s, sep, "three" );
console.log( s );
It will print:
one, two, three