We Keep Coding

Is it bad practice to use a function that changes stuff inside a condition, making the condition order-dependent?

var a = 1;
function myFunction() {
++a;
return true;
}
// Alert pops up.
if (myFunction() && a === 2) {
alert("Hello, world!");
}
// Alert does not pop up.
if (a === 3 && myFunction()) {
alert("Hello, universe!");
}
https://jsfiddle.net/3oda22e4/6/
myFunction increments a variable and returns something. If I use a function like that in an if statement that contains the variable which it increments, the condition would be order-dependent.
Is it good or bad practice to do this, and why?

Conditions are order-dependent whether you change the variables used in the condition or not. The two if statements that you used as an example are different and will be different whether you use myFunction() or not. They are equivalent to:
if (myFunction()) {
if (a === 2) {
alert("Hello, world!")
}
}
// Alert does not pop up.
if (a === 3) {
if (myFunction()) {
alert("Hello, universe!")
}
}
In my opinion, the bad practice in your code is not the fact that you change the condition's operands value inside the condition, but the fact that your application state is exposed and manipulated inside a function that does not even accept this state changing variable as a parameter. We usually try to isolate the functions from the code outside their scope and use their return value to affect the rest of the code. Global variables are 90% of the time a bad idea and as your code base gets larger and larger they tend to create problems that are difficult to trace, debug and solve.

It's bad practice, for the following reasons:
The code is far less readable than well-constructed code. This is very important if the code is later examined by a third party.
If myfunction is changed later, the code flow is completely unpredictable, and might require a major documentation update.
Small and simple changes can have drastic effects on the execution of the code.
It looks amateur.

If you have to ask, it's hardly a good practice. Yes, it's a bad practice for exactly the reason you mentioned: changing the order of operands of a logical operation should not affect the outcome, and therefore side effects in conditions should generally be avoided. Especially when they are hidden in a function.
Whether the function is pure (only reads state and does some logic) or whether it mutates state should be obvious from its name. You have several options to fix this code:
put the function call before the if:
function tryChangeA() {
a++;
return true;
}
var ok = tryChangeA();
if (ok && a == 2) … // alternatively: if (a == 2 && ok)
make the mutation explicit inside the if:
function testSomething(val) {
return true;
}
if (testSomething(++a) && a == 2) …
put the logic inside the called function:
function changeAndTest() {
a++;
return a == 2;
}
if (changeAndTest()) …

MyFunction violates a principle called Tell, Don't Ask.
MyFunction changes the state of something, thus making it a command. If MyFunction succeeds or somehow fails to increment a, it shouldn't return true or false. It was given a job and it must either try to succeed or if it finds that job is impossible at the moment, it should throw an exception.
In the predicate of an if statement, MyFunction is used as a query.
Generally speaking, queries should not exhibit side-effects (i.e. not changing things that can be observed). A good query can be treated like a calculation in that for the same inputs, it should produce the same outputs (sometimes described as being "idempotent").
It's also important to know that these are guidelines to help you and others reason about the code. Code that can cause confusion, will. Confusion about code is a hatchery for bugs.
There are good patterns like the Trier-Doer pattern which can be used like your code example, but everyone reading it must understand what's happening though names and structure.

The code presents more then one bad practice actually:
var a = 1;
function myFunction() {
++a; // 1
return true;
}
if (myFunction() && a === 2) { // 2, 3, 4
alert("Hello, world!")
}
if (a === 3 && myFunction()) { // 2, 3, 4
alert("Hello, universe!")
}
Mutates a variable in a different scope. This may or may not be a problem, but usually it is.
Calls a function inside an if statement condition.
This do not cause problems in itself, but it's not really clean.
It's a better practice to assign the result of that function to a variable, possibly with a descriptive name. This will help whoever reads the code to understand what exactly you want to check inside that if statement. By the way, the function always return true.
Uses some magic numbers.
Imagine someone else reading that code, and it is part of a large codebase. What those numbers mean? A better solution would be to replace them with well named constants.
If you want to support more messages, you need to add more conditions.
A better approach would be to make this configurable.
I would rewrite the code as follows:
const ALERT_CONDITIONS = { // 4
WORLD_MENACE: 2,
UNIVERSE_MENACE: 3,
};
const alertsList = [
{
message: 'Hello world',
condition: ALERT_CONDITIONS.WORLD_MENACE,
},
{
message: 'Hello universe',
condition: ALERT_CONDITIONS.UNIVERSE_MENACE,
},
];
class AlertManager {
constructor(config, defaultMessage) {
this.counter = 0; // 1
this.config = config; // 2
this.defaultMessage = defaultMessage;
}
incrementCounter() {
this.counter++;
}
showAlert() {
this.incrementCounter();
let customMessageBroadcasted = false;
this.config.forEach(entry => { //2
if (entry.condition === this.counter) {
console.log(entry.message);
customMessageBroadcasted = true; // 3
}
});
if (!customMessageBroadcasted) {
console.log(this.defaultMessage)
}
}
}
const alertManager = new AlertManager(alertsList, 'Nothing to alert');
alertManager.showAlert();
alertManager.showAlert();
alertManager.showAlert();
alertManager.showAlert();
A class with a precise function, that use its own internal state, instead of a bunch of functions that rely on some variable that could be located anywhere. Whether to use a class or not, it's a matter of choice. It could be done in a different way.
Uses a configuration. That means that would you want to add more messages, you don't have to touch the code at all. For example, imagine that configuration coming from a database.
As you may notice, this mutates a variable in the outer scope of the function, but in this case it does not cause any issue.
Uses constants with a clear name. (well, it could be better, but bear with me given the example).

A function that changes stuff. What is the world coming too? This function must change stuff and return different values each time its called.
Consider the dealCard function for a deck of playing cards. it deals the cards 1-52. Each time it is called it should return a different value.
function dealCard() {
++a;
return cards(a);
}
/* we'll just assume the array cards is shuffled */
/* for the sake of brevity we'll assume the deck is infinite and doesn't loop at 52*/

Is This Callback Referencing a Dereferenced Closure?

I have been dealing with issues in multiple pieces of code but it seems to boil down to what I’m showing in this demo. I think it is related to the ’s dereferencing of a closure:
function get_5(callback) {
var result = 5;
callback(result);
}
function get_self(x) {
return x;
}
get_5(console.log);
// 5
console.log(get_self(5));
// 5
In the first result, the first function ran as expected, sending its hidden variable into the input of the console.log function.
The second result also makes sense, as it really just proves the second function works: it takes what was fed in and returns it.
But things get strange when I try to combine the two functions:
var a = get_5(get_self);
console.log(a);
// Undefined!
This third result is undefined, strangely enough, and I am not sure why. Is the closure being dereferenced, maybe to the “sneakiness” of the get_self function? How can I fix this? As a bonus, is there a way to eliminate the get_self function entirely and be able to directly read the variable result, which isn’t modified, without specifying any particular callback?

get_5 has no return statement. It doesn't matter what you pass to get_5, it will always return undefined.
Perl will return the result of evaluating the last statement in a sub, but JavaScript will not.
If you want get_5 to return the result of calling the callback you pass to it, then you have to say so explicitly:
function get_5(callback) {
var result = 5;
return callback(result);
}

How do you carry mutating data into callbacks within loops?

I constantly run into problems with this pattern with callbacks inside loops:
while(input.notEnd()) {
input.next();
checkInput(input, (success) => {
if (success) {
console.log(`Input ${input.combo} works!`);
}
});
}
The goal here is to check every possible value of input, and display the ones that pass an asynchronous test after confirmed. Assume the checkInput function performs this test, returning a boolean pass/fail, and is part of an external library and can't be modified.
Let's say input cycles through all combinations of a multi-code electronic jewelry safe, with .next incrementing the combination, .combo reading out the current combination, and checkInput asynchronously checking if the combination is correct. The correct combinations are 05-30-96, 18-22-09, 59-62-53, 68-82-01 are 85-55-85. What you'd expect to see as output is something like this:
Input 05-30-96 works!
Input 18-22-09 works!
Input 59-62-53 works!
Input 68-82-01 works!
Input 85-55-85 works!
Instead, because by the time the callback is called, input has already advanced an indeterminate amount of times, and the loop has likely already terminated, you're likely to see something like the following:
Input 99-99-99 works!
Input 99-99-99 works!
Input 99-99-99 works!
Input 99-99-99 works!
Input 99-99-99 works!
If the loop has terminated, at least it will be obvious something is wrong. If the checkInput function is particularly fast, or the loop particularly slow, you might get random outputs depending on where input happens to be at the moment the callback checks it.
This is a ridiculously difficult bug to track down if you find your output is completely random, and the hint for me tends to be that you always get the expected number of outputs, they're just wrong.
This is usually when I make up some convoluted solution to try to preserve or pass along the inputs, which works if there is a small number of them, but really doesn't when you have billions of inputs, of which a very small number are successful (hint, hint, combination locks are actually a great example here).
Is there a general purpose solution here, to pass the values into the callback as they were when the function with the callback first evaluated them?

If you want to iterate one async operation at a time, you cannot use a while loop. Asynchronous operations in Javascript are NOT blocking. So, what your while loop does is run through the entire loop calling checkInput() on every value and then, at some future time, each of the callbacks get called. They may not even get called in the desired order.
So, you have two options here depending upon how you want it to work.
First, you could use a different kind of loop that only advances to the next iteration of the loop when the async operation completes.
Or, second, you could run them all in a parallel like you were doing and capture the state of your object uniquely for each callback.
I'm assuming that what you probably want to do is to sequence your async operations (first option).
Sequencing async operations
Here's how you could do that (works in either ES5 or ES6):
function next() {
if (input.notEnd()) {
input.next();
checkInput(input, success => {
if (success) {
// because we are still on the current iteration of the loop
// the value of input is still valid
console.log(`Input ${input.combo} works!`);
}
// do next iteration
next();
});
}
}
next();
Run in parallel, save relevant properties in local scope in ES6
If you wanted to run them all in parallel like your original code was doing, but still be able to reference the right input.combo property in the callback, then you'd have to save that property in a closure (2nd option above) which let makes fairly easy because it is separately block scoped for each iteration of your while loop and thus retains its value for when the callback runs and is not overwritten by other iterations of the loop (requires ES6 support for let):
while(input.notEnd()) {
input.next();
// let makes a block scoped variable that will be separate for each
// iteration of the loop
let combo = input.combo;
checkInput(input, (success) => {
if (success) {
console.log(`Input ${combo} works!`);
}
});
}
Run in parallel, save relevant properties in local scope in ES5
In ES5, you could introduce a function scope to solve the same problem that let does in ES6 (make a new scope for each iteration of the loop):
while(input.notEnd()) {
input.next();
// create function scope to save value separately for each
// iteration of the loop
(function() {
var combo = input.combo;
checkInput(input, (success) => {
if (success) {
console.log(`Input ${combo} works!`);
}
});
})();
}

You could use the new feature async await for asynchronous calls, this would let you wait for the checkInput method to finish when inside the loop.
You can read more about async await here
I believe the snippet below achieves what you are after, I created a MockInput function that should mock the behaviour of your input. Note the Async and await keywords in the doAsyncThing method and keep an eye on the console when running it.
Hope this clarifies things.
function MockInput() {
this.currentIndex = 0;
this.list = ["05-30-96", "18-22-09", "59-62-53", "68-82-0", "85-55-85"];
this.notEnd = function(){
return this.currentIndex <= 4;
};
this.next = function(){
this.currentIndex++;
};
this.combo = function(){
return this.list[this.currentIndex];
}
}
function checkInput(input){
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(()=> {
var isValid = input.currentIndex % 2 > 0; // 'random' true or false
resolve( `Input ${input.currentIndex} - ${input.combo()} ${isValid ? 'works!' : 'did not work'}`);
}, 1000);
});
}
async function doAsyncThing(){
var input = new MockInput();
while(input.notEnd()) {
var result = await checkInput(input);
console.log(result);
input.next();
}
console.log('Done!');
}
doAsyncThing();

getting the name of a variable through an anonymous function

Is it possible to find the name of an anonymous function?
e.g. trying to find a way to alert either anonyFu or findMe in this code http://jsfiddle.net/L5F5N/1/
function namedFu(){
alert(arguments.callee);
alert(arguments.callee.name);
alert(arguments.callee.caller);
alert(arguments.caller);
alert(arguments.name);
}
var anonyFu = function() {
alert(arguments.callee);
alert(arguments.callee.name);
alert(arguments.callee.caller);
alert(arguments.caller);
alert(arguments.name);
}
var findMe= function(){
namedFu();
anonyFu();
}
findMe();
This is for some internal testing, so it doesn't need to be cross-browser. In fact, I'd be happy even if I had to install a plugin.

You can identify any property of a function from inside it, programmatically, even an unnamed anonymous function, by using arguments.callee. So you can identify the function with this simple trick:
Whenever you're making a function, assign it some property that you can use to identify it later.
For example, always make a property called id:
var fubar = function() {
this.id = "fubar";
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.id);
}
arguments.callee is the function, itself, so any property of that function can be accessed like id above, even one you assign yourself.
Callee is officially deprecated, but still works in almost all browsers, and there are certain circumstances in which there is still no substitute. You just can't use it in "strict mode".
You can alternatively, of course, name the anonymous function, like:
var fubar = function foobar() {
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
But that's less elegant, obviously, since you can't (in this case) name it fubar in both spots; I had to make the actual name foobar.
If all of your functions have comments describing them, you can even grab that, like this:
var fubar = function() {
/*
fubar is effed up beyond all recognition
this returns some value or other that is described here
*/
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.toString().substr(0, 128);
}
Note that you can also use argument.callee.caller to access the function that called the current function. This lets you access the name (or properties, like id or the comment in the text) of the function from outside of it.
The reason you would do this is that you want to find out what called the function in question. This is a likely reason for you to be wanting to find this info programmatically, in the first place.
So if one of the fubar() examples above called this following function:
var kludge = function() {
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.id); // return "fubar" with the first version above
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.name); // return "foobar" in the second version above
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.toString().substr(0, 128);
/* that last one would return the first 128 characters in the third example,
which would happen to include the name in the comment.
Obviously, this is to be used only in a desperate case,
as it doesn't give you a concise value you can count on using)
*/
}

Doubt it's possible the way you've got it. For starters, if you added a line
var referenceFu = anonyFu;
which of those names would you expect to be able to log? They're both just references.
However – assuming you have the ability to change the code – this is valid javascript:
var anonyFu = function notActuallyAnonymous() {
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
which would log "notActuallyAnonymous". So you could just add names to all the anonymous functions you're interested in checking, without breaking your code.
Not sure that's helpful, but it's all I got.

I will add that if you know in which object that function is then you can add code - to that object or generally to objects prototype - that will get a key name basing on value.
Object.prototype.getKeyByValue = function( value ) {
for( var prop in this ) {
if( this.hasOwnProperty( prop ) ) {
if( this[ prop ] === value )
return prop;
}
}
}
And then you can use
THAT.getKeyByValue(arguments.callee.caller);
Used this approach once for debugging with performance testing involved in project where most of functions are in one object.
Didn't want to name all functions nor double names in code by any other mean, needed to calculate time of each function running - so did this plus pushing times on stack on function start and popping on end.
Why? To add very little code to each function and same for each of them to make measurements and calls list on console. It's temporary ofc.
THAT._TT = [];
THAT._TS = function () {
THAT._TT.push(performance.now());
}
THAT._TE = function () {
var tt = performance.now() - THAT._TT.pop();
var txt = THAT.getKeyByValue(arguments.callee.caller);
console.log('['+tt+'] -> '+txt);
};
THAT.some_function = function (x,y,z) {
THAT._TS();
// ... normal function job
THAT._TE();
}
THAT.some_other_function = function (a,b,c) {
THAT._TS();
// ... normal function job
THAT._TE();
}
Not very useful but maybe it will help someone with similar problem in similar circumstances.

arguments.callee it's deprecated, as MDN states:
You should avoid using arguments.callee() and just give every function
(expression) a name.
In other words:
[1,2,3].forEach(function foo() {
// you can call `foo` here for recursion
})
If what you want is to have a name for an anonymous function assigned to a variable, let's say you're debugging your code and you want to track the name of this function, then you can just name it twice, this is a common pattern:
var foo = function foo() { ... }
Except the evaling case specified in the MDN docs, I can't think of any other case where you'd want to use arguments.callee.

No. By definition, an anonymous function has no name. Yet, if you wanted to ask for function expressions: Yes, you can name them.
And no, it is not possible to get the name of a variable (which references the function) during runtime.

Breaking out of a PrototypeJS .each() loop

In this very contrived example, I have an array with 3 elements that I'm looping over using the .each() method.
var vals = $w('foo bar baz');
vals.each( function(val) {
alert(val);
if( val == 'bar' ) {
//This exits function(val)
//but still continues with the .each()
return;
}
});
I can easily return out of the function being called by .each() if I need to.
My question is, how can I break out of the .each() loop from inside the function that .each() is calling?

if( val == 'bar' ) {
throw $break;
}
It's documented at the same page you linked. It's an exception specially handled by the each function. When thrown, it prevents your function from being called on further elements.

Your are correct, and Prototype has created an object ($break) that can be thrown from the each-function to enable this functionality. According to the Prototype API docs:
Regular loops can be short-circuited in JavaScript using the break and continue statements. However, when using iterator functions, your code is outside of the loop scope: the looping code happens behind the scene.
In order to provide you with equivalent (albeit less optimal) functionality, Prototype provides two global exception objects, $break and $continue. Throwing these is equivalent to using the corresponding native statement in a vanilla loop. These exceptions are properly caught internally by the each method.
Also, note that the $continue object has been deprecated, and to simulate a continue-statement, use a vanilla return statement instead.
Code example:
var result = [];
$R(1,10).each(function(n) {
if (0 == n % 2)
return; // this equals continue
if (n > 6)
throw $break;
result.push(n);
});
// result -> [1, 3, 5]
You can read more about the each-function here: http://www.prototypejs.org/api/enumerable/each

Based on the documentation for .each() that you linked to, you should use a throw $break; statement, this should cause further iterations to cease.
Simply returning will cause the iterator to continue to the next one.

From that page you linked to, isn't the correct way
if(val == 'bar')
{
throw $break;
}
?