Related
I find the named parameters feature in C# quite useful in some cases.
calculateBMI(70, height: 175);
What can I use if I want this in JavaScript?
What I don’t want is this:
myFunction({ param1: 70, param2: 175 });
function myFunction(params){
// Check if params is an object
// Check if the parameters I need are non-null
// Blah blah
}
That approach I’ve already used. Is there another way?
I’m okay using any library to do this.
ES2015 and later
In ES2015, parameter destructuring can be used to simulate named parameters. It would require the caller to pass an object, but you can avoid all of the checks inside the function if you also use default parameters:
myFunction({ param1 : 70, param2 : 175});
function myFunction({param1, param2}={}){
// ...function body...
}
// Or with defaults,
function myFunc({
name = 'Default user',
age = 'N/A'
}={}) {
// ...function body...
}
ES5
There is a way to come close to what you want, but it is based on the output of Function.prototype.toString [ES5], which is implementation dependent to some degree, so it might not be cross-browser compatible.
The idea is to parse the parameter names from the string representation of the function so that you can associate the properties of an object with the corresponding parameter.
A function call could then look like
func(a, b, {someArg: ..., someOtherArg: ...});
where a and b are positional arguments and the last argument is an object with named arguments.
For example:
var parameterfy = (function() {
var pattern = /function[^(]*\(([^)]*)\)/;
return function(func) {
// fails horribly for parameterless functions ;)
var args = func.toString().match(pattern)[1].split(/,\s*/);
return function() {
var named_params = arguments[arguments.length - 1];
if (typeof named_params === 'object') {
var params = [].slice.call(arguments, 0, -1);
if (params.length < args.length) {
for (var i = params.length, l = args.length; i < l; i++) {
params.push(named_params[args[i]]);
}
return func.apply(this, params);
}
}
return func.apply(null, arguments);
};
};
}());
Which you would use as:
var foo = parameterfy(function(a, b, c) {
console.log('a is ' + a, ' | b is ' + b, ' | c is ' + c);
});
foo(1, 2, 3); // a is 1 | b is 2 | c is 3
foo(1, {b:2, c:3}); // a is 1 | b is 2 | c is 3
foo(1, {c:3}); // a is 1 | b is undefined | c is 3
foo({a: 1, c:3}); // a is 1 | b is undefined | c is 3
DEMO
There are some drawbacks to this approach (you have been warned!):
If the last argument is an object, it is treated as a "named argument objects"
You will always get as many arguments as you defined in the function, but some of them might have the value undefined (that's different from having no value at all). That means you cannot use arguments.length to test how many arguments have been passed.
Instead of having a function creating the wrapper, you could also have a function which accepts a function and various values as arguments, such as
call(func, a, b, {posArg: ... });
or even extend Function.prototype so that you could do:
foo.execute(a, b, {posArg: ...});
No - the object approach is JavaScript's answer to this. There is no problem with this provided your function expects an object rather than separate params.
Lots of people say to just use the "Pass an object" trick so that you have named parameters.
/**
* My Function
*
* #param {Object} arg1 Named arguments
*/
function myFunc(arg1) { }
myFunc({ param1 : 70, param2 : 175});
And that works great, except... when it comes to most IDEs out there, a lot of us developers rely on type / argument hints within our IDE. I personally use PhpStorm (along with other JetBrains IDEs, like PyCharm for Python and AppCode for Objective-C).
And the biggest problem with using the "Pass an object" trick is that when you are calling the function, the IDE gives you a single type hint and that's it... How are we supposed to know what parameters and types should go into the arg1 object?
So... the "Pass an object" trick doesn't work for me... It actually causes more headaches with having to look at each function's docblock before I know what parameters the function expects.... Sure, it's great for when you are maintaining existing code, but it's horrible for writing new code.
Well, this is the technique I use... Now, there may be some issues with it, and some developers may tell me I'm doing it wrong, and I have an open mind when it comes to these things... I am always willing to look at better ways of accomplishing a task... So, if there is an issue with this technique, then comments are welcome.
/**
* My Function
*
* #param {string} arg1 Argument 1
* #param {string} arg2 Argument 2
*/
function myFunc(arg1, arg2) { }
var arg1, arg2;
myFunc(arg1='Param1', arg2='Param2');
This way, I have the best of both worlds. New code is easy to write as my IDE gives me all the proper argument hints. And, while maintaining code later on, I can see at a glance, not only the value passed to the function, but also the name of the argument. The only overhead I see is declaring your argument names as local variables to keep from polluting the global namespace. Sure, it's a bit of extra typing, but it's trivial compared to the time it takes to look up docblocks while writing new code or maintaining existing code.
Update - 2022
JavaScript now has the ability to have something close to named parameters using object destructuring available in ES6. Most newer browsers can use this feature See browser support
This is how it works:
// Define your function like this
function myFunc({arg1, arg2, arg3}) {
// Function body
}
// Call your function like this
myFunc({arg1: "value1", arg2: "value2", arg3: "value3"})
// You can also have default values for arguments
function myFunc2({firstName, lastName, age = 21}) {
// Function body
}
// And you can call it with or without an "age" argument
myFunc({firstName: "John", lastName: "Doe"}) // Age will be 21
myFunc({firstName: "Jane", lastName: "Doe", age: 22})
The best part is that most IDE's now support this syntax and you get good argument hint support
TypeScript
For those of you using TypeScript, you can do the same thing using this syntax
function myFunc(
{firstName, lastName, age = 21}:
{firstName: string, lastName: string, age?: number}
) {
// Function body
}
OR, using an interface
interface Params {
firstName: string
lastName: string
age?: number
}
function myFunc({firstName, lastName, age = 21}: Params) {
// Function body
}
If you want to make it clear what each of the parameters are, rather than just calling
someFunction(70, 115);
do the following:
var width = 70, height = 115;
someFunction(width, height);
Sure, it's an extra line of code, but it wins on readability.
Another way would be to use attributes of a suitable object, e.g. like so:
function plus(a,b) { return a+b; };
Plus = { a: function(x) { return { b: function(y) { return plus(x,y) }}},
b: function(y) { return { a: function(x) { return plus(x,y) }}}};
sum = Plus.a(3).b(5);
Of course for this made up example it is somewhat meaningless. But in cases where the function looks like
do_something(some_connection_handle, some_context_parameter, some_value)
it might be more useful. It also could be combined with "parameterfy" idea to create such an object out of an existing function in a generic way. That is for each parameter it would create a member that can evaluate to a partial evaluated version of the function.
This idea is of course related to Schönfinkeling aka Currying.
Calling function f with named parameters passed as the object
o = {height: 1, width: 5, ...}
is basically calling its composition f(...g(o)) where I am using the spread syntax and g is a "binding" map connecting the object values with their parameter positions.
The binding map is precisely the missing ingredient, that can be represented by the array of its keys:
// map 'height' to the first and 'width' to the second param
binding = ['height', 'width']
// take binding and arg object and return aray of args
withNamed = (bnd, o) => bnd.map(param => o[param])
// call f with named args via binding
f(...withNamed(binding, {hight: 1, width: 5}))
Note the three decoupled ingredients: the function, the object with named arguments and the binding. This decoupling allows for a lot of flexibility to use this construct, where the binding can be arbitrarily customized in function's definition and arbitrarily extended at the function call time.
For instance, you may want to abbreviate height and width as h and w inside your function's definition, to make it shorter and cleaner, while you still want to call it with full names for clarity:
// use short params
f = (h, w) => ...
// modify f to be called with named args
ff = o => f(...withNamed(['height', 'width'], o))
// now call with real more descriptive names
ff({height: 1, width: 5})
This flexibility is also more useful for functional programming, where functions can be arbitrarily transformed with their original param names getting lost.
There is another way. If you're passing an object by reference, that object's properties will appear in the function's local scope. I know this works for Safari (haven't checked other browsers) and I don't know if this feature has a name, but the below example illustrates its use.
Although in practice I don't think that this offers any functional value beyond the technique you're already using, it's a little cleaner semantically. And it still requires passing a object reference or an object literal.
function sum({ a:a, b:b}) {
console.log(a+'+'+b);
if(a==undefined) a=0;
if(b==undefined) b=0;
return (a+b);
}
// will work (returns 9 and 3 respectively)
console.log(sum({a:4,b:5}));
console.log(sum({a:3}));
// will not work (returns 0)
console.log(sum(4,5));
console.log(sum(4));
Coming from Python this bugged me. I wrote a simple wrapper/Proxy for node that will accept both positional and keyword objects.
https://github.com/vinces1979/node-def/blob/master/README.md
NB. My answer of 2016 is not correct and misleading as mentioned in comments.
Trying Node-6.4.0 ( process.versions.v8 = '5.0.71.60') and Node Chakracore-v7.0.0-pre8 and then Chrome-52 (V8=5.2.361.49), I've noticed that named parameters are almost implemented, but that order has still precedence. I can't find what the ECMA standard says.
>function f(a=1, b=2){ console.log(`a=${a} + b=${b} = ${a+b}`) }
> f()
a=1 + b=2 = 3
> f(a=5)
a=5 + b=2 = 7
> f(a=7, b=10)
a=7 + b=10 = 17
But order is required!! Is it the standard behaviour?
> f(b=10)
a=10 + b=2 = 12
This is admittedly pseudocode, but I believe it'll work (I know it works in TypeScript; I'm adopting it for JavaScript).
// Target Function
const myFunc = (a=1,b=2,c=3) => {a+b+c}
// Goal usage:
myFunc(a=5, b=6) // 14
myFunc(c=0) // 3
// Set your defaults
const myFuncDefaults = {a:1, b:2, c:3};
// Override them with passed parameters
const myFuncParams = (params) => { return Object.assign(myFuncDefaults, params)}
// Use the overloaded dict as the input
const myFunc2 = (params) => {
let {a, b, c} = myFuncParams(params);
return myFunc(a, b, c)
}
// Usage:
myFunc({a:5, b:6}) // 14
myFunc({c:0}) // 3
// Written more succinctly:
const myFunc = (params) => {
let {a,b,c} = Object.assign({a:1, b:2, c:3}, params)
return a + b + c
}
For what it's worth, TypeScript makes this kind of nice with hinting:
interface IParams {
a: number;
b: number;
c: number;
}
const myFunc = (params: Partial<IParams>): number => {
const default: IParams = {a:1, b:2, c:3};
let {a, b, c} = Object.assign(default, params)
return a + b + c
}
Yes, well, kind of. I've found two solutions. I'll explain just one.
In this solution, we give up positional arguments, though.
We can use an object (almost identical to a dict in Python) to pass the arguments.
In this example, I'm using the function to generate the name of a image file:
// First we define our function with just ONE argument
function name_of_img(img_desc){
// With this step, any undefined value will be assigned a value
if(img_desc.size == undefined) {img_desc.size = "400x500"}
if(img_desc.format == undefined) {img_desc.format = ".png"}
console.log(img_desc.size + img_desc.format)
}
// Notice inside our function we're passing a dict/object
name_of_img({size: "200x250", format : ".jpg"})
// In Python name_of_img(size="200x250" , format="jpg")
// returns "200x250.jpg"
name_of_img({size: "1200x950"})
// In Python name_of_img(size="1200x950")
// returns "1200x950.png"
We can modify this example, so we can use positional arguments too, we can also modify it so non valid arguments can be passed, I think I will make a GitHub repository about this.
Contrary to what is commonly believed, named parameters can be implemented in standard, old-school JavaScript (for boolean parameters only) by means of a simple, neat coding convention, as shown below.
function f(p1=true, p2=false) {
...
}
f(!!"p1"==false, !!"p2"==true); // call f(p1=false, p2=true)
Caveats:
Ordering of arguments must be preserved - but the pattern is still useful, since it makes it obvious which actual argument is meant for which formal parameter without having to grep for the function signature or use an IDE.
This only works for booleans. However, I'm sure a similar pattern could be developed for other types using JavaScript's unique type coercion semantics.
I find the named parameters feature in C# quite useful in some cases.
calculateBMI(70, height: 175);
What can I use if I want this in JavaScript?
What I don’t want is this:
myFunction({ param1: 70, param2: 175 });
function myFunction(params){
// Check if params is an object
// Check if the parameters I need are non-null
// Blah blah
}
That approach I’ve already used. Is there another way?
I’m okay using any library to do this.
ES2015 and later
In ES2015, parameter destructuring can be used to simulate named parameters. It would require the caller to pass an object, but you can avoid all of the checks inside the function if you also use default parameters:
myFunction({ param1 : 70, param2 : 175});
function myFunction({param1, param2}={}){
// ...function body...
}
// Or with defaults,
function myFunc({
name = 'Default user',
age = 'N/A'
}={}) {
// ...function body...
}
ES5
There is a way to come close to what you want, but it is based on the output of Function.prototype.toString [ES5], which is implementation dependent to some degree, so it might not be cross-browser compatible.
The idea is to parse the parameter names from the string representation of the function so that you can associate the properties of an object with the corresponding parameter.
A function call could then look like
func(a, b, {someArg: ..., someOtherArg: ...});
where a and b are positional arguments and the last argument is an object with named arguments.
For example:
var parameterfy = (function() {
var pattern = /function[^(]*\(([^)]*)\)/;
return function(func) {
// fails horribly for parameterless functions ;)
var args = func.toString().match(pattern)[1].split(/,\s*/);
return function() {
var named_params = arguments[arguments.length - 1];
if (typeof named_params === 'object') {
var params = [].slice.call(arguments, 0, -1);
if (params.length < args.length) {
for (var i = params.length, l = args.length; i < l; i++) {
params.push(named_params[args[i]]);
}
return func.apply(this, params);
}
}
return func.apply(null, arguments);
};
};
}());
Which you would use as:
var foo = parameterfy(function(a, b, c) {
console.log('a is ' + a, ' | b is ' + b, ' | c is ' + c);
});
foo(1, 2, 3); // a is 1 | b is 2 | c is 3
foo(1, {b:2, c:3}); // a is 1 | b is 2 | c is 3
foo(1, {c:3}); // a is 1 | b is undefined | c is 3
foo({a: 1, c:3}); // a is 1 | b is undefined | c is 3
DEMO
There are some drawbacks to this approach (you have been warned!):
If the last argument is an object, it is treated as a "named argument objects"
You will always get as many arguments as you defined in the function, but some of them might have the value undefined (that's different from having no value at all). That means you cannot use arguments.length to test how many arguments have been passed.
Instead of having a function creating the wrapper, you could also have a function which accepts a function and various values as arguments, such as
call(func, a, b, {posArg: ... });
or even extend Function.prototype so that you could do:
foo.execute(a, b, {posArg: ...});
No - the object approach is JavaScript's answer to this. There is no problem with this provided your function expects an object rather than separate params.
Lots of people say to just use the "Pass an object" trick so that you have named parameters.
/**
* My Function
*
* #param {Object} arg1 Named arguments
*/
function myFunc(arg1) { }
myFunc({ param1 : 70, param2 : 175});
And that works great, except... when it comes to most IDEs out there, a lot of us developers rely on type / argument hints within our IDE. I personally use PhpStorm (along with other JetBrains IDEs, like PyCharm for Python and AppCode for Objective-C).
And the biggest problem with using the "Pass an object" trick is that when you are calling the function, the IDE gives you a single type hint and that's it... How are we supposed to know what parameters and types should go into the arg1 object?
So... the "Pass an object" trick doesn't work for me... It actually causes more headaches with having to look at each function's docblock before I know what parameters the function expects.... Sure, it's great for when you are maintaining existing code, but it's horrible for writing new code.
Well, this is the technique I use... Now, there may be some issues with it, and some developers may tell me I'm doing it wrong, and I have an open mind when it comes to these things... I am always willing to look at better ways of accomplishing a task... So, if there is an issue with this technique, then comments are welcome.
/**
* My Function
*
* #param {string} arg1 Argument 1
* #param {string} arg2 Argument 2
*/
function myFunc(arg1, arg2) { }
var arg1, arg2;
myFunc(arg1='Param1', arg2='Param2');
This way, I have the best of both worlds. New code is easy to write as my IDE gives me all the proper argument hints. And, while maintaining code later on, I can see at a glance, not only the value passed to the function, but also the name of the argument. The only overhead I see is declaring your argument names as local variables to keep from polluting the global namespace. Sure, it's a bit of extra typing, but it's trivial compared to the time it takes to look up docblocks while writing new code or maintaining existing code.
Update - 2022
JavaScript now has the ability to have something close to named parameters using object destructuring available in ES6. Most newer browsers can use this feature See browser support
This is how it works:
// Define your function like this
function myFunc({arg1, arg2, arg3}) {
// Function body
}
// Call your function like this
myFunc({arg1: "value1", arg2: "value2", arg3: "value3"})
// You can also have default values for arguments
function myFunc2({firstName, lastName, age = 21}) {
// Function body
}
// And you can call it with or without an "age" argument
myFunc({firstName: "John", lastName: "Doe"}) // Age will be 21
myFunc({firstName: "Jane", lastName: "Doe", age: 22})
The best part is that most IDE's now support this syntax and you get good argument hint support
TypeScript
For those of you using TypeScript, you can do the same thing using this syntax
function myFunc(
{firstName, lastName, age = 21}:
{firstName: string, lastName: string, age?: number}
) {
// Function body
}
OR, using an interface
interface Params {
firstName: string
lastName: string
age?: number
}
function myFunc({firstName, lastName, age = 21}: Params) {
// Function body
}
If you want to make it clear what each of the parameters are, rather than just calling
someFunction(70, 115);
do the following:
var width = 70, height = 115;
someFunction(width, height);
Sure, it's an extra line of code, but it wins on readability.
Another way would be to use attributes of a suitable object, e.g. like so:
function plus(a,b) { return a+b; };
Plus = { a: function(x) { return { b: function(y) { return plus(x,y) }}},
b: function(y) { return { a: function(x) { return plus(x,y) }}}};
sum = Plus.a(3).b(5);
Of course for this made up example it is somewhat meaningless. But in cases where the function looks like
do_something(some_connection_handle, some_context_parameter, some_value)
it might be more useful. It also could be combined with "parameterfy" idea to create such an object out of an existing function in a generic way. That is for each parameter it would create a member that can evaluate to a partial evaluated version of the function.
This idea is of course related to Schönfinkeling aka Currying.
Calling function f with named parameters passed as the object
o = {height: 1, width: 5, ...}
is basically calling its composition f(...g(o)) where I am using the spread syntax and g is a "binding" map connecting the object values with their parameter positions.
The binding map is precisely the missing ingredient, that can be represented by the array of its keys:
// map 'height' to the first and 'width' to the second param
binding = ['height', 'width']
// take binding and arg object and return aray of args
withNamed = (bnd, o) => bnd.map(param => o[param])
// call f with named args via binding
f(...withNamed(binding, {hight: 1, width: 5}))
Note the three decoupled ingredients: the function, the object with named arguments and the binding. This decoupling allows for a lot of flexibility to use this construct, where the binding can be arbitrarily customized in function's definition and arbitrarily extended at the function call time.
For instance, you may want to abbreviate height and width as h and w inside your function's definition, to make it shorter and cleaner, while you still want to call it with full names for clarity:
// use short params
f = (h, w) => ...
// modify f to be called with named args
ff = o => f(...withNamed(['height', 'width'], o))
// now call with real more descriptive names
ff({height: 1, width: 5})
This flexibility is also more useful for functional programming, where functions can be arbitrarily transformed with their original param names getting lost.
There is another way. If you're passing an object by reference, that object's properties will appear in the function's local scope. I know this works for Safari (haven't checked other browsers) and I don't know if this feature has a name, but the below example illustrates its use.
Although in practice I don't think that this offers any functional value beyond the technique you're already using, it's a little cleaner semantically. And it still requires passing a object reference or an object literal.
function sum({ a:a, b:b}) {
console.log(a+'+'+b);
if(a==undefined) a=0;
if(b==undefined) b=0;
return (a+b);
}
// will work (returns 9 and 3 respectively)
console.log(sum({a:4,b:5}));
console.log(sum({a:3}));
// will not work (returns 0)
console.log(sum(4,5));
console.log(sum(4));
Coming from Python this bugged me. I wrote a simple wrapper/Proxy for node that will accept both positional and keyword objects.
https://github.com/vinces1979/node-def/blob/master/README.md
NB. My answer of 2016 is not correct and misleading as mentioned in comments.
Trying Node-6.4.0 ( process.versions.v8 = '5.0.71.60') and Node Chakracore-v7.0.0-pre8 and then Chrome-52 (V8=5.2.361.49), I've noticed that named parameters are almost implemented, but that order has still precedence. I can't find what the ECMA standard says.
>function f(a=1, b=2){ console.log(`a=${a} + b=${b} = ${a+b}`) }
> f()
a=1 + b=2 = 3
> f(a=5)
a=5 + b=2 = 7
> f(a=7, b=10)
a=7 + b=10 = 17
But order is required!! Is it the standard behaviour?
> f(b=10)
a=10 + b=2 = 12
This is admittedly pseudocode, but I believe it'll work (I know it works in TypeScript; I'm adopting it for JavaScript).
// Target Function
const myFunc = (a=1,b=2,c=3) => {a+b+c}
// Goal usage:
myFunc(a=5, b=6) // 14
myFunc(c=0) // 3
// Set your defaults
const myFuncDefaults = {a:1, b:2, c:3};
// Override them with passed parameters
const myFuncParams = (params) => { return Object.assign(myFuncDefaults, params)}
// Use the overloaded dict as the input
const myFunc2 = (params) => {
let {a, b, c} = myFuncParams(params);
return myFunc(a, b, c)
}
// Usage:
myFunc({a:5, b:6}) // 14
myFunc({c:0}) // 3
// Written more succinctly:
const myFunc = (params) => {
let {a,b,c} = Object.assign({a:1, b:2, c:3}, params)
return a + b + c
}
For what it's worth, TypeScript makes this kind of nice with hinting:
interface IParams {
a: number;
b: number;
c: number;
}
const myFunc = (params: Partial<IParams>): number => {
const default: IParams = {a:1, b:2, c:3};
let {a, b, c} = Object.assign(default, params)
return a + b + c
}
Yes, well, kind of. I've found two solutions. I'll explain just one.
In this solution, we give up positional arguments, though.
We can use an object (almost identical to a dict in Python) to pass the arguments.
In this example, I'm using the function to generate the name of a image file:
// First we define our function with just ONE argument
function name_of_img(img_desc){
// With this step, any undefined value will be assigned a value
if(img_desc.size == undefined) {img_desc.size = "400x500"}
if(img_desc.format == undefined) {img_desc.format = ".png"}
console.log(img_desc.size + img_desc.format)
}
// Notice inside our function we're passing a dict/object
name_of_img({size: "200x250", format : ".jpg"})
// In Python name_of_img(size="200x250" , format="jpg")
// returns "200x250.jpg"
name_of_img({size: "1200x950"})
// In Python name_of_img(size="1200x950")
// returns "1200x950.png"
We can modify this example, so we can use positional arguments too, we can also modify it so non valid arguments can be passed, I think I will make a GitHub repository about this.
Contrary to what is commonly believed, named parameters can be implemented in standard, old-school JavaScript (for boolean parameters only) by means of a simple, neat coding convention, as shown below.
function f(p1=true, p2=false) {
...
}
f(!!"p1"==false, !!"p2"==true); // call f(p1=false, p2=true)
Caveats:
Ordering of arguments must be preserved - but the pattern is still useful, since it makes it obvious which actual argument is meant for which formal parameter without having to grep for the function signature or use an IDE.
This only works for booleans. However, I'm sure a similar pattern could be developed for other types using JavaScript's unique type coercion semantics.
I know the implementation of how to pass infinite parameters in a function in javascript.
But how to accepts any number of objects as a parameter in function?
I have this:
function merge<T>(objA:T, objB: T){
return Object.assign(objA, objB);
}
so that I can do like this:
console.log(`${mergeObject2.age}, ${mergeObject2.name}`);
But how to declare a function if that number of objects is not known..?
for example this:
const mergeObject2 = merge({name: 'Niels'}, {age :39}, {hobby: 'all'});
Thank you.
so if I do it like this:
const mergeObject2 = merge({name: 'Niels'}, {age :39} );
console.log(`${mergeObject2.age}, ${mergeObject2.name}`);
then the output is of course:
39, Niels
But how to do it if you have more objects..?
Fundamentally, if you want to accept N parameters in TypeScript, the varying parameters will all have to have the same type. (It can be a union type, though.) For instance:
function myFunction(a: boolean, b: string, ...rest: Array<number | string>) {
// ...
}
(Array<number | string> can also be written (number | string)[].)
That function requires at least two arguments (a boolean and a string) followed by any number of number or string arguments. Note how the "rest" of the parameters are bundled up in an array, which is why they have to have the same type (number | string in the example). Of course, once you're dealing with one specific element from that array, you can use if to narrow its type.
If you don't need any fixed parameters (a and b in the example), just start with the rest parameter.
If you want to use Object.assign in the implementation, you'll need to make the first one required (or hardcode Object.assign's first argument). So your merge might be:
function merge<T extends object>(target: T, ...sources: T[]): T {
return Object.assign(target, ...sources);
}
const mergeObject2 = merge({name: "Niels"}, {age: 39}); // ¹
console.log(`${mergeObject2.age}, ${mergeObject2.name}`);
Playground link
That's basically just Object.assign but with the types slightly more restricted (I think), though.
¹ You might want to put a {} at the beginning to avoid modifying the {name: "Neils"} object.
You can make use of arguments object available in ES5.
It's just like a variable with type array, and is accessible inside a function.
It contains the values of all the arguments passed to that function.
function a(){
let sum = 0;
for(let i=0;i<arguments.length;i++){
sum += arguments[i];
}
console.log(sum);
}
a(1,2,3);
In your case to copy all objects into one, you can do something like this:
function a(){
let finalObj = {};
for(let i=0;i<arguments.length;i++){
finalObj = {...finalObj,...arguments[i]};
}
console.log(finalObj);
}
a({id:1},{name:"sam"},{age: 25});
I want to create a object with many properties, but, when I just console.log my object or insert it into a evaluation, it does have a default value to evaluate or log, a primitive value, like "test", for example.
I tried to use getters and setters but had no sucess.
const obj = { a: 'test1', b: 'test2' } // this is my object
console.log(obj.a); // this should return 'test1'
console.log(obj); // this should return a value of my choice, like 'testobj' or a number
'testobj' === obj; // should be true, since I want my obj to have a default value of 'testobj' in evaluations
// just like a primitive type, like strings or numbers. They have many functions and a default value
When an object is treated like a string, the JavaScript runtime will look to see if it has a toString() method and will return whatever that method indicates. If there isn't a toString(), then usually you'll see [object Object]. Also, to produce the underlying primitive value, give the object a valueOf value.
Additionally, when making objects that will be used in this way, use constructor functions, rather than object literals.
const objA = function(){ this.a= 'test1'; this.b= 'test2' }
let instA = new objA();
console.log(instA.toString());
const objB = function() {
this.a= 5;
this.b= 'test2';
this.toString= function(){ return this.a; };
this.valueOf = function() { return this.toString(); };
}
let instB = new objB();
console.log(instB.toString());
console.log(instB + 2); // Get the primitive and work with that
One year later I ran into this question again and found a solution. My objective was to create a string/number with a few methods that would use itself(this) to generate the output values and could be used in your code as a normal number/string without casting or anything like that, like a normal JS number/string.
Something like a number that has its own value but you can access the number.negative property and you will have the negative equivalent to your number. You can do it creating a class that extends the primitive type that you want to use, like, for a Number, I can use:
class Num extends Number {
negative = this * (-1);
// I can even add a few methods that receive props to calculate new output values
exponential(exp) {
let result = 1;
while(exp-- > 0) {
result *= this;
}
return result;
}
}
const myNum = new Num(3);
console.log('Simple sum: ', 1 + myNum); // outputs 4
console.log('Negative: ', myNum.negative); // outputs -3
console.log('Exponential: ', myNum.exponential(2)); // outputs 9
The code above works for strings as well. Hope I can help someone with this.
Can someone please explain this javascript syntax.
What does n: { } mean?
Does it mean that AVSetFocus returns a nobject (which has been given the temporary name, n, which consists of 'fields' t, f and a. t is an object (looks like), f is a function of the object t, and a is an array?
So AVSetFocus is returning an object and a function and an array. Does this function actually call SetFocusToField?
What is this style called?
Bit confused.
function AVSetFocus(d, b) {
return {
n: {
t: FocusMgr,
f: FocusMgr.SetFocusToField,
a: [d, b]
}
}
}
Just also found this:
var FocusMgr;
function FocusMgr_Init() {
FocusMgr = new function () {
this.mCurFocusID = 0;
this.mCurFocusWindowID = 0;
this.mCurFocusElement = null;
this.mOpenedWindow = false;
this.mFocusStk = [];
//etc
}
}
The AvSetFocus() function returns this object:
{
n: {
t: FocusMgr,
f: FocusMgr.SetFocusToField,
a: [d, b]
}
}
The object has one property, "n", which itself refers to another object:
{
t: FocusMgr,
f: FocusMgr.SetFocusToField,
a: [d, b]
}
...which in turn has three properties. "t" refers to (presumably) yet another object, "f" refers to a method of same object "t" refers to, which seems a little redundant since you could access that via ""t, and "a" ends up referring to an array of the two values passed into AvSetFocus() as parameters.
"Does this function actually call SetFocusToField?"
No it doesn't. You might use it something like:
var avsf = AvSetFocus(x, y);
avsf.n.f(); // calls FocusMgr.SetFocusToField()
Or you could do this:
AvSetFocus(x, y).n.f();
As for what the parameters you pass to AvSetFocus() should be, I have no idea - from the code shown there's no way to tell.
Does it mean that AVSetFocus returns a nobject (which has been given
the temporary name, n, which consists of 'fields' t, f and a. t is an
object (looks like), f is a function of the object t, and a is an
array?
{} is the object literal notation. It creates a new object. So yes you are correct.
The f variable is just a reference to the method, but it is not executed.
You can call the function by doing n.f();