I just wondering to find a keyword or a solution so that I can further find and fix my own problem, so basically, I wanted to call a function but from a function argument, like this.
var arg = function() {/*do something*/};
function do(arg) {
arg();
}
do(arg);
But I want to put multiple functions on it, but not constant, it sometimes can be 1 function, or sometimes 2 functions or more, is there any solution that I can take? or a keyword to I start searching with? I already searched the internet but I could not find what I want.
You could use some really cool new feature called rest parameters. Here is an example.
function callMultiple(...fn) {
fn.forEach(fn => fn());
}
function FnOne() {
console.log('function one called');
}
function FnTwo() {
console.log('function two called');
}
callMultiple(FnOne, FnTwo);
Now callMultiple can take any number of functions.
MDN reference
function doFn(){
for(var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) arguments[i]();
}
One line ES6:
var doFn = (...args) => args.forEach(fn => fn());
PD: ´do´ is a reserved word, you should use diffetent variable name.
What you need to do to your do() function is this:
function do(args) {
for (var i = 1; i <= args.length; i += 1) {
args[i]();
}
}
This would fix your problem. However, you should know that do is a JavaScript keyword, so you should avoid using it as a variable or function of your own.
EDIT: You must include anything you're passing to your function, so you need to add the args parameter.
Related
I am making a reduce function that uses another function, which takes multiple arguments, as a callback. My question is, if I wish to test the callback function for whether an argument exists, what syntax would I need to use.
var result = _.reduce([1,2,3], function(memo) {
return memo;
});
_.reduce = function(arr, fun, opt){
//if(arguments[1][1] == undefined) return arr[0];
The last line is my best attempt. What I am trying to say is that, if the function in the result line has no second argument, return arr[0].
If I understand your question correctly, you are trying to access the arguments inside a function call. You can use the arguments object for this.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/arguments/length
It allows you to iterate through the arguments of a function and do something with them. For example -
function yourCustomReduceFunction() {
for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
console.log(arguments[i]);
}
}
Hope this helps :)
I have the following:
for( var i=0; i<array.length; i++) {
if(array[i] instanceof Buff) {
someDiv[i].onclick = buffTest.bind(i);
}
}
I'm really tempted to just do something like someDiv[i].onclick = function() { buffTest(i) }; but for the sake of actually learning what's wrong and improving, I would like to understand what I'm doing wrong. Am I using bind wrong in some way? I forgot to mention, the issue I'm having is:
function buffTest(yy){
console.log(yy);
}
console.log returns a MouseEvent instead of the number from i. any help on the matter is GREATLY appreciated, thanks in advance for any info.
It's probably just because the first argument of bind is the this value.
You probably want this instead:
someDiv[i].onclick = buffTest.bind(someDiv[i], i);
EDIT: Like #bfavarette stated, if you do not mind what this will be in your listener, you could also pass null instead of someDiv[i], but since when attaching event listeners using this method, you expect this to be the object on which the listener was attached, I sticked to that behavior in the sample I provided.
bind does two jobs: it sets the this value for the function when it gets called later, and it pre-fills function arguments. If you just want to set the this value, you pass it as the first argument. Any arguments after the first are used to "pre-fill" the function parameters.
In your case, you just want to pre-fill parameters, so set the first parameter of bind to null or window or anything else. i should be the second parameter.
buffTest.bind(
null, // doesn't matter
i // pre-fills the first argument to buffTest
)
Try this.
function makeTest(i) {
return function () {
buffTest(i);
};
}
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (array[i] instanceof Buff) {
someDiv[i].onclick = makeTest(i);
}
}
This code is supposed to pop up an alert with the number of the image when you click it:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
You can see it not working at http://jsfiddle.net/upFaJ/. I know that this is because all of the click-handler closures are referring to the same object i, so every single handler pops up "10" when it's triggered.
However, when I do this, it works fine:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
}
You can see it working at http://jsfiddle.net/v4sSD/.
Why does it work? There's still only one i object in memory, right? Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference. The output of the two code snippets should be identical. So why is the i object being copied 10 times? Why does it work?
I think it's interesting that this version doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function () {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
})();
}
It seems that the passing of the object as a function parameter makes all the difference.
EDIT: OK, so the previous example can be explained by primitives (i) being passed by value to the function call. But what about this example, which uses real objects?
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Not working: http://jsfiddle.net/Zpwku/
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
(function (t) {
t.click(function () { t.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(t);
})(toggler);
}
Working: http://jsfiddle.net/YLSn6/
Most of the answers are correct in that passing an object as a function parameter breaks a closure and thus allow us to assign things to functions from within a loop. But I'd like to point out why this is the case, and it's not just a special case for closures.
You see, the way javascript passes parameters to functions is a bit different form other languages. Firstly, it seems to have two ways of doing it depending on weather it's a primitive value or an object. For primitive values it seems to pass by value and for objects it seems to pass by reference.
How javascript passes function arguments
Actually, the real explanation of what javascript does explains both situations, as well as why it breaks closures, using just a single mechanism.
What javascript does is actually it passes parameters by copy of reference. That is to say, it creates another reference to the parameter and passes that new reference into the function.
Pass by value?
Assume that all variables in javascript are references. In other languages, when we say a variable is a reference, we expect it to behave like this:
var i = 1;
function increment (n) { n = n+1 };
increment(i); // we would expect i to be 2 if i is a reference
But in javascript, it's not the case:
console.log(i); // i is still 1
That's a classic pass by value isn't it?
Pass by reference?
But wait, for objects it's a different story:
var o = {a:1,b:2}
function foo (x) {
x.c = 3;
}
foo(o);
If parameters were passed by value we'd expect the o object to be unchanged but:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
That's classic pass by reference there. So we have two behaviors depending on weather we're passing a primitive type or an object.
Wait, what?
But wait a second, check this out:
var o = {a:1,b:2,c:3}
function bar (x) {
x = {a:2,b:4,c:6}
}
bar(o);
Now see what happens:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
What! That's not passing by reference! The values are unchanged!
Which is why I call it pass by copy of reference. If we think about it this way, everything makes sense. We don't need to think of primitives as having special behavior when passed into a function because objects behave the same way. If we try to modify the object the variable points to then it works like pass by reference but if we try to modify the reference itself then it works like pass by value.
This also explains why closures are broken by passing a variable as a function parameter. Because the function call will create another reference that is not bound by the closure like the original variable.
Epilogue: I lied
One more thing before we end this. I said before that this unifies the behavior of primitive types and objects. Actually no, primitive types are still different:
var i = 1;
function bat (n) { n.hello = 'world' };
bat(i);
console.log(i.hello); // undefined, i is unchanged
I give up. There's no making sense of this. It's just the way it is.
It's because you are calling a function, passing it a value.
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
alert(i);
}
You expect this to alert different values, right? Because you are passing the current value of i to alert.
function attachClick(val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
}
With this function, you'd expect it to alert whatever val was passed into it, right? That also works when calling it in a loop:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
attachClick(i);
}
This:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
(function (val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
})(i);
}
is just an inline declaration of the above. You are declaring an anonymous function with the same characteristics as attachClick above and you call it immediately. The act of passing a value through a function parameter breaks any references to the i variable.
upvoted deceze's answer, but thought I'd try a simpler explanation. The reason the closure works is that variables in javascript are function scoped. The closure creates a new scope, and by passing the value of i in as a parameter, you are defining a local variable i in the new scope. without the closure, all of the click handlers you define are in the same scope, using the same i. the reason that your last code snippet doesn't work is because there is no local i, so all click handlers are looking to the nearest parent context with i defined.
I think the other thing that might be confusing you is this comment
Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference.
this is true for objects, but not primitive values (numbers, for example). This is why a new local i can be defined. To demonstrate, if you did something weird like wrapping the value of i in an array, the closure would not work, because arrays are passed by reference.
// doesn't work
for(var i=[0]; i[0]<10; i[0]++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2[0]).click(
function () { alert(i2[0]); }
);
})(i);
}
In the first example, there is only one value of i and it's the one used in the for loop. This, all event handlers will show the value of i when the for loop ends, not the desired value.
In the second example, the value of i at the time the event handler is installed is copied to the i2 function argument and there is a separate copy of that for each invocation of the function and thus for each event handler.
So, this:
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
Creates a new variable i2 that has it's own value for each separate invocation of the function. Because of closures in javascript, each separate copy of i2 is preserved for each separate event handler - thus solving your problem.
In the third example, no new copy of i is made (they all refer to the same i from the for loop) so it works the same as the first example.
Code 1 and Code 3 didn't work because i is a variable and values are changed in each loop. At the end of loop 10 will be assigned to i.
For more clear, take a look at this example,
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
}
alert(i)
http://jsfiddle.net/muthkum/t4Ur5/
You can see I put a alert after the loop and it will show show alert box with value 10.
This is what happening to Code 1 and Code 3.
Run the next example:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
i++;
You'll see that now, 11 is being alerted.
Therefore, you need to avoid the reference to i, by sending it as a function parameter, by it's value. You have already found the solution.
One thing that the other answers didn't mention is why this example that I gave in the question doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Coming back to the question months later with a better understanding of JavaScript, the reason it doesn't work can be understood as follows:
The var toggler declaration is hoisted to the top of the function call. All references to toggler are to the same actual identifier.
The closure referenced in the anonymous function is the same (not a shallow copy) of the one containing toggler, which is being updated for each iteration of the loop.
#2 is quite surprising. This alerts "5" for example:
var o;
setTimeout(function () { o = {value: 5}; }, 100);
setTimeout(function () { alert(o.value) }, 1000);
Can I write a function that returns iteself?
I was reading some description on closures - see Example 6 - where a function was returning a function, so you could call func()(); as valid JavaScript.
So I was wondering could a function return itself in such a way that you could chain it to itself indefinitely like this:
func(arg)(other_arg)()(blah);
Using arguments object, callee or caller?
There are 2-3 ways. One is, as you say, is to use arguments.callee. It might be the only way if you're dealing with an anonymous function that's not stored assigned to a variable somewhere (that you know of):
(function() {
return arguments.callee;
})()()()().... ;
The 2nd is to use the function's name
function namedFunc() {
return namedFunc;
}
namedFunc()()()().... ;
And the last one is to use an anonymous function assigned to a variable, but you have to know the variable, so in that case I see no reason, why you can't just give the function a name, and use the method above
var storedFunc = function() {
return storedFunc;
};
storedFunc()()()().... ;
They're all functionally identical, but callee is the simplest.
Edit: And I agree with SLaks; I can't recommend it either
Yes.
Just return arguments.callee;
However, this is likely to result in very confusing code; I do not recommend it.
You can do what you want as following:
// Do definition and execution at the same time.
var someFunction = (function someFunction() {
// do stuff
return someFunction
})();
console.log(someFunction)
arguments.callee is not supported in JavaScript strict mode.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Strict_mode
Even sorter that all the above is:
f=()=>f
There is a simple way to achieve this doing the following:
let intArr = [];
function mul(x){
if(!x){
return intArr.reduce((prev, curr) => prev * curr)
}
intArr.push(x);
return mul;
}
console.log(mul(2)(4)(2)()); => outputs 16
It is also possible just to return the argument the self invokable function like
console.log( (function(a) { return a; })(1) ); // returns 1
I know this kind of question gets asked alot, but I still haven't been able to find a way to make this work correctly.
The code:
function doStuff () {
for (var i = 0; i< elementsList.length; i++) {
elementsList[i].previousSibling.lastChild.addEventListener("click", function(){
toggle(elementsList[i])}, false);
}
} // ends function
function toggle (element) {
alert (element);
}
The problem is in passing variables to the toggle function. It works with the this keyword (but that sends a reference to the clicked item, which in this case is useless), but not with elementsList[i] which alerts as undefined in Firefox.
As I understood it, using anonymous functions to call a function is enough to deal with closure problems, so what have I missed?
Try:
function startOfFunction() {
for (var i = 0; i< elementsList.length; i++) {
elementsList[i].previousSibling.lastChild.addEventListener(
"click",
(function(el){return function(){toggle(el);};})(elementsList[i]),
false
);
}
} // ends function
function toggle (element) {
alert (element);
}
The Problem is, that you want to use the var i! i is available in the onClick Event, (since closure and stuff). Since you have a loop, i is counted up. Now, if you click on any of the elements, i will always be elementsList.length (since all event functions access the same i )!
using the solution of Matt will work.
As an explanation: the anonymous function you use in the for loop references the variable "i" to get the element to toggle. As anonymous functions use the "live" value of the variable, when somebody clicks the element, "i" will always be elementsList.length+1.
The code example from Matt solves this by sticking the i into another function in which it is "fixated". This always holds true:
If you iterate over elements attaching events, do not use simple anonymous functions as they screw up, but rather create a new function for each element. The more readable version of Matts answer would be:
function iterate () {
for (var i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
// In here, i changes, so list[i] changes all the time, too. Pass it on!
list[i].addEventListener(createEventFunction(list[i]);
}
}
function createEventFunction (item) {
// In here, item is fixed as it is passed as a function parameter.
return function (event) {
alert(item);
};
}
Try:
function doStuff () {
for (var i = 0; i< elementsList.length; i++) {
(function(x) {
elementsList[x].previousSibling.lastChild.addEventListener("click", function(){
toggle(elementsList[x])}, false);
})(i);
}
} // ends function
I think it might be an issue with passing elementsList[i] around, so the above code has a closure which should help.