I am trying to access settings and values/functions from within other functions in JavaScript, and believe there is probably a simple rule which I am missing. Here is a very simplified code example:
function h(){
// example settings I want to declare for h()
this.settings = {
critical: 400,
readCritical: function(){
return this.settings.critical; // /!\ but this does not work
}
}
this.hsub = function(){
return this.settings.critical; // /!\ this does not work either
}
}
var x = new h();
console.log(x.settings.critical); // This works fine
console.log(x.settings.readCritical()); // I can *call* this fine, but it can't read outside itself
console.log(x.hsub()); // I can also call this but same problem
console.log(h.settings); // `undefined`; I understand I can't see directly into the function
You can see the this.settings.critical value, which I'm trying to access from inside the respective functions readCritical and hsub. How can I do this? Specifically from the instantiated x.
Also a secondary question but related, I would prefer to declare var settings = {} instead of this.settings. Is this possible or preferable?
Only change you need to make is to remove .settings from within the readCritical function.
The hsub works as is. Not sure why you thought there was a problem
function h(){
this.settings = {
critical: 400,
readCritical: function(){
return this.critical; // reference `critical` directly
}
}
this.hsub = function(){
return this.settings.critical; // this works just fine
}
}
var x = new h();
console.log(x.settings.critical); // 400
console.log(x.settings.readCritical()); // 400
console.log(x.hsub()); // 400
// This is expected to be `undefined`
console.log(h.settings);
Ahh, another old classic closure problem.
There are two ways to solve it:
function h(){
var self = this;
this.settings = {
critical: 400;
readCritical: function() {
return self.settings.critical(); // otherwise this.settings will 'cover' `this`.
}
}
}
readCritical: () => this.settings.critical(); // arrow functions won't form a function scope
The scope of this (and binding functions to set it) are much discussed topics in JS. However, you seem not to be looking for this specifically, but sharing variables, there's another alternative. All in all, there's no best answer, but since you would also like to declare var settings = {}: you actually can and have access to that local variable available inside the other functions.
function h(){
var settings = { //var settings is a local variable of the function h (or instance of it). If ES6 is allowed 'let' or 'const' are preferrable
critical: 400,
readCritical: function(){
return settings.critical;
}
};
this.settings = settings; //this.settings is not the same variable as var settings, making this statement valid
this.hsub = function(){
return settings.critical; //the local (var) settings is used
}
}
var x = new h();
console.log(x.settings.critical);
console.log(x.settings.readCritical());
console.log(x.hsub());
Pitfall here, is that if the calling code changes x.settings to something else, the variables will not point to the same instance (if they change a value inside x.settings, all is well). If that is a risk, it could be exposed as a property method instead
It looks like you only want to have one instance. If that is so, then just create the instance immediately with an object literal notation:
var h = {
settings: {
critical: 400,
readCritical: function(){
return this.critical;
}
},
hsub: function(){
return this.settings.critical;
}
}
console.log(h.settings.critical);
console.log(h.settings.readCritical());
console.log(h.hsub());
console.log(h.settings);
Now all four property accesses work as expected when given the singleton object h.
Related
I wanted to rearrange my Code to OOP, but I am not able to figure out my errors here, especially since they appear correct according to different Tutorials and examples.
I suppose I misunderstand something of JS´s, object-instantiation and Call stack.
I will provide some examples, which I don´t understand.
What I want here is to do some operations on an Array and then get it to an other class.
https://jsfiddle.net/8g22nj8y/1/
<script>
$(document).ready(function() {
var p = new Parser();
p.init();
p.getArray();
p.getArray2();
p.get3();
}</script>
function Parser() {
var myArray = [];
this.myArray2 = [];
thisReference = this;
this.myArray3=[];
return {
init: function () {
alert("huhu");
this.parse2();
parse();
},
getArray: function () {
alert(thisReference.myArray2.length);
},
getArray2: function () {
alert(myArray);
}
}
function parse() {
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
myArray.push(arr);
myArray2.push(arr);
for(var i =0;i<10;i++){
a=[];
a.push(i);
thisReference.myArray3.push(a);
}
}}Parser.prototype.parse2 = function () {
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
myArray.push(arr);
this.myArray2.push(arr);};
Independent how I run it, it always says that this.parse2() is not a function.
When I am only using parse(), it says that myArray2 is undefined, althought it´s clearly there - just as "class variable". If I change myArray2 in parse() to thisReference.myArray2 it´s working.
Why? I thought an inner Function - which parse() clearly is, is able to grab all the variable in the outer function - in this case Parser(). When I am now using myArray3 either if it´s used with thisReference or with this. "it is not defined".
If I call parse2 with thisReference it´s working, but then "myArray is not defined", yes it´s an local variable but it´s in the same class and if I call parse() I am able to use it without problems.
Furthermore:
simplified: https://jsfiddle.net/Lzaudhxw/1/
function Syntax(){
var mine = new Lex();
myRef=this;
}
Class1.prototype.foo=function(){
myRef.mine.setFunc(5);
myRef.mine.publicFunc();}
function Lex(){
this.x, this.h=1;
return{
publicFunc: function(param){
this.h;
this.x;
},
setFunc: function(x){
this.x=x;
}
}
Initially I set h to be 1. If I now instantiiate Syntax and call from that the publicFunc from Lex both are undefined. But if I run foo() from Syntax and call the publicFunc again, x is set to the value and h is undefined. Why is it not possible to predefine an varriable (in this case h) like that and then use it?
EDIT to Jan´s Answer:
I read in many Tutorials and some production code that you should store "this" into an variable. Why should myRef point to anything else than the Syntax Object? :O
Why is myRef not an variable of Syntax? Does it have to be this.myRef?
Ahh right, var means local, so mine is only accessiable in the constructor?!
I didn´t wanted to init "x", only define it.
Ahh with return{} I am creating a new class/object, then it´s clear that this. does not point to the above vars. But to introduce an myRef=this should do the job, right?
...So, it´s wiser to use prototype to add functions instead of an inner function?
Yeah you've got a bunchload of JS concepts wrong. I suggest you read the documentation. Tried adding a few explanations.
function Syntax(){
// Since you're returning a new object from "Lex" straight away, there's
// little point of using "new" here
var mine = new Lex();
// Why store "this" here? "this" will be accessible from your prototype
// methods pointing to your object instance... Provided you use "new Syntax()",
// Otherwise "myRef" will (probably) point to the global object.
myRef=this;
}
// Where's "Class1"? You don't have a Class1 function anywhere. You probably mean "Syntax"
Class1.prototype.foo=function() {
// "myRef" is not a property of "Syntax", so it wouldn't be accessible here.
// Furthermore, "mine" is declared as a variable above, so it wouldn't be
// accessible in this manner even if "myRef" pointed to "this" (which it doesn't).
myRef.mine.setFunc(5);
myRef.mine.publicFunc();
}
function Lex(){
// This is a correct property declaration of h. You're not setting the
// value of x here though, just calling it. Javascript allows "trying"
// to call ANY property of ANY object without giving neither a compilation
// nor runtime error, so calling the undefined "this.x" here is valid.
// It just won't do anything.
this.x, this.h=1;
// Here you return a new object straight off, so the below "this" will point
// to the object below, not the "Lex" object defined above. So your above
// defined "this.h" will not be used, it's a property of a different object.
return {
publicFunc: function(param){
this.h;
this.x;
},
setFunc: function(x){
this.x=x;
}
}
// You're missing a closing bracket here.
What you're probably trying to do would look something like this with correct Javascript syntax
function Syntax(){
this.mine = Lex();
}
Syntax.prototype.foo=function() {
this.mine.setFunc(5);
this.mine.publicFunc();
}
function Lex() {
return {
h:1,
publicFunc: function(){
console.log(this.h);
console.log(this.x);
},
setFunc: function(x){
this.x=x;
}
}
}
var s = new Syntax();
s.foo();
But returning an object from Lex would be pretty impractical in most cases. So what you really REALLY want to do is probably
function Syntax(){
this.mine = new Lex();
}
Syntax.prototype.foo = function() {
this.mine.setFunc(5);
this.mine.publicFunc();
}
function Lex() {
this.h = 1;
}
Lex.prototype = {
publicFunc: function(){
console.log(this.h);
console.log(this.x);
},
setFunc: function(x){
this.x=x;
}
};
var s = new Syntax();
s.foo();
I am trying to understand better the use of that and this in JavaScript. I am following Douglas Crockford's tutorial here: http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html
but I am confused regarding a couple of things. I have given an example below, and I would like to know if I am making a correct use of them:
function ObjectC()
{
//...
}
function ObjectA(givenB)
{
ObjectC.call(this); //is the use of this correct here or do we need that?
var aa = givenB;
var that = this;
function myA ()
{
that.getA(); //is the use of that correct or do we need this?
}
this.getA = function() //is the use of this correct?
{
console.log("ObjectA");
};
}
function ObjectB()
{
var that = this;
var bb = new ObjectA(that); //is the use of that correct or do we need this?
this.getB = function()
{
return bb;
};
that.getB(); //is the use of that correct or do we need this?
}
Note this is just an example.
this in JavaScript always refers to current object, method of which was called. But sometimes you need to access this of your object in deeper. For example, in callbacks. Like so:
function MyClass() {
this.a = 10;
this.do = function() {
http.get('blablabla', function(data) {
this.a = data.new_a;
});
};
}
It will not work, because this in callback may refer to http, to some dom element or just window(which is really common). So, it is common solution to define self or that, an alias for this or your object, so you can refer it anywhere inside.
function MyClass() {
var self = this;
this.a = 10;
this.do = function() {
http.get('blablabla', function(data) {
self.a = data.new_a;
});
};
}
This should give you vision why it is used and how it should be used.
There is no other reasons(currect me if I'm wrong) to create special variable, you can use this to send your object to other objects and do things, many assignments, such logic, wow...
ObjectC.call(this); //is the use of this correct here or do we need that?
The first thing you need to understand is how the this keyword works. It's value depends on how the function/method/constructor is called.
In this case, function ObjectA is a constructor, so you can just use this inside the code of it. In fact, with var that = this; you declare them to be absolutely identical (unless you use that before assigning to it).
function myA() {
that.getA(); //is the use of that correct or do we need this?
}
Again, it depends on how the function is called - which you unfortunately have not show us. If if was a method of the instance, this would have been fine; but but it seems you will need to use that.
this.getA = function() //is the use of this correct?
As stated above, using that would not make any difference.
var bb = new ObjectA(that) //is the use of that correct or do we need this?
var that = this;
that is undefined when it is used here. And it would be supposed to have the same value as this anyway. Better use this.
that.getB(); //is the use of that correct or do we need this?
Again, both have the same effect. But since you don't need that, you should just use this.
Everything is correct except for :
function ObjectB()
{
var bb = new ObjectA(that) //this is wrong
var that = this;
this.getB = function()
{
return bb;
};
that.getB();
}
You are missing ; and that isn't declare.
You need that (in your case, this is the variable name you use) when you want to use this in another scope :
function ObjectB()
{
var that = this;
// here 'this' is good
function()
{
// Here 'this' doesn't refer to the 'this' you use in function ObjectB()
// It's not the same scope
// You'll need to use 'that' (any variable from the ObjectB function that refers to 'this')
};
// Here 'that' = 'this', so there is no difference in using one or another
}
What "that" is in this context is simply a variable that is equal to "this". That means saying "that" is exactly the same as saying "this", which makes in unnecessarily complicating.
This code:
var that=this;
that.getA();
Will yield the same result as this code:
this.getA();
Having a variable to represent "this" just complicates things when you can just say "this".
I am trying to understand the way that javascript passes functions around and am having a bit of a problem groking why a prototype function can NOT access a var defined in a function constructor while a function defined in the constructor can access the var. Here is code that works:
var model = function model() {
this.state = 1;
this.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
}
var othermodel = function othermodel(mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = mdl.GetState;
}
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function() {
console.log(this.GetStateFn.call());
};
var m = new model();
var o = new othermodel(m)
o.WriteState();
This works and makes sense - the GetState() function can access this.state.
However, if I create GetState as follows:
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
The result will be an error that scope is not defined.
I would prefer to have this work with the prototype method as I do not want a copy of the function in ever model, but it would seem that prototype can't work because it can't access the specific instance of the model.
So, can someone provide me with a good explanation of a) what I need to do to get this to work with prototype (assuming I can) and b) if I can't get it to work with prototype, what is the reason so I can understand better the underpinnings of the issue.
Why not simply write the function this way
model.prototype.GetState = function() { return this.state; }
var othermodel = function othermodel(mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = mdl.GetState.bind(mdl);
}
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function() {
console.log(this.GetStateFn.call());
};
The above code will work, as in most cases you will execute code like m.GetState(). That is an example of invoking a function as an object method. In that case, this is guaranteed to point to the object m. You seem to know how the prototype chains work, so I won't go there.
When assigning the function reference to the other model, we use the .bind to ensure that within GetState, this points to mdl. Reference for bind: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
Your original IIFE's were in effect your implementation of bind. The issue was the value of this was wrong. Currently, every time you need to assign models function to some other function, you will need to use bind at all those times. You have tagged your question as node.js, bind is available on the Function prototype in node.js and any ES5 compatible browser. If you need to run the above code on older browsers or environments that do not support bind, replace bind with your IIFE.
As for why your code isn't working,
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
Here, this doesn't refer to the eventual model object (m). this can refer to any one of 5 options in javascript. Refer: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/this
Lets assume the above code is in an html file inside some script tag. Then this will refer to the window object. window doesn't have any property called state, hence the undefined. If you were to console.log(this.m, this.o) at the end of you script, you would see the respective m and o objects.
When defined like this:
var model = function model() {
this.state = 1;
this.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
}
the anonymous function is declared and immediately executed. this is passed as a parameter to that self-executing function. As a result - a new function is returned, but this function has scope parameter in its closure - so that it is accessible after the scope has exited. As a result - the function, when invoked, can still access state property of that "enclosed" this (the one that became scope and was closed upon).
If you define it like this:
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
the mechanism is the same, it's just this is not. It is now the context of the scope you execute the above code in. Assuming it's done in global scope - it would be window object.
If you don't want to use bind because of its support with older browsers, you could try this:
http://jsfiddle.net/j7h97/1/
var model = function (state) {
this.state = state || new Date().getTime();
};
model.prototype.GetState = function () {
return this.state;
};
model.prototype.WriteState = function () {
console.log("model WriteState: " + this.GetState());
};
var othermodel = function othermodel (mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = function () {
return mdl.GetState.call(mdl);
};
};
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function () {
console.log("othermodel WriteState: " + this.GetStateFn());
};
var model1 = new model();
model1.WriteState();
var othermodel1 = new othermodel(model1);
othermodel1.WriteState();
var model2 = new model();
model2.WriteState();
var othermodel2 = new othermodel(model2);
othermodel2.WriteState();
Seems to do what you want without bind. I created the model.prototype.WriteState for testing purposes.
It depends on where it is called. If it's in global scope, this will not refer the the model. If it's running in a browser it will refer to the global window object instead.
http://jsfiddle.net/ZLH7J/1/
What the jsFiddle and code below shows are two examples that essentially do the same thing. When trying to call first(); or this.first(); in either example, an undefined error is thrown. I can call the functions later through the instance, but not when trying to instantiate the object using init(){...}() like a constructor. I put init() at the bottom thinking it was an order of operations thing, but that is not the case. This does not work the way I thought it would work.
I am curious to understand how this is supposed to be done, and why this cannot be done.
//create and return an obj
var fishSticks = function(){
return {
first: function(){
document.getElementById('output').innerHTML="Success";
},
init: function(){
try{
first(); //err
this.first(); // also err
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}()
}
}
//do function stuff and then return 'this'
var fishFillet = function(){
var first = function(){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML="Success";
}
var init = function(){
try{
first(); //err
this.first(); // also err
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}()
return this;
}
var test = new fishSticks();
var test2 = new fishFillet();
You need to understand two things:
1) JavaScript does not automatically insert this like Java does, so the first() call will only look through the lexical scope for a definition of first, it will nok look at the this object. Therefore the call to first() should work but this will be bound to something else than what you might expect inside first.
2) Local variables in a constructor do not become members of the constructed object.
In your second example, if you comment out the call in "init" to this.first() then you get the "Success" message.
The first version doesn't work because JavaScript simply does not allow for references to be made within an under-construction object to the object itself. There's just no way to do it.
The second one works (well the simple reference to "first" works) because "first" is declared as a local variable. Local variables are not properties of any object, and in particular they're not properties of the object allocated when the function is called with new. That's why this.first() doesn't work.
In the second one, you could make this.first() work by declaring things differently:
var fishFillet = function(){
this.first = function(){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML="Success";
}
var init = function(){
try{
this.first(); //will work
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}()
return this;
}
Also, for what it's worth, the weird anti-pattern of
var something = function() { ... }
is not as useful as
function something() { ... }
There's no reason to use the var declaration instead of the function declaration.
How about...
var fishFillet = function () {
var first = function () {
document.write( 'Success' );
};
var init = function () {
first();
};
init();
return {
first: first
};
};
And then:
var ff = fishFillet(); // calls init() which calls first()
ff.first(); // call first() manually
Live demo: http://jsfiddle.net/uaCnv/
So, first you define all your functions, next you manually invoke init, and last you return an object containing those functions which should be available through the resulting object (as methods).
Since you are using both as a constructor, format them as such:
function fishFillet(){
this.first = function(){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML="Success";
}
this.init = function(){
try{
this.first();
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}
}
var food = new fishFillet();
food.init();
The reason it wasn't working for you is b/c "first" is created as a local varaible, and is deleted after execultion. Init isn't being called until after the execution of the constructor has finished
Is there any way to break a closure easily in JavaScript? The closest I have gotten is this:
var src = 3;
function foo () {
return function () {
return src; }
}
function bar (func) {
var src = 9;
return eval('('+func.toString()+')')(); // This line
}
alert(bar(foo()));
This prints '9', instead of '3', as a closure would dictate. However, this approach seems kind of ugly to me, are there any better ways?
Your code is not breaking the closure, you're just taking the code the makes up a function and evaluating it in a different context (where the identifier src has a different value). It has nothing at all to do with the closure that you've created over the original src.
It is impossible to inspect data that has been captured in a closure. In a sense, such data are even more "private" than private members in Java, C++, C# etc where you can always use reflection or pointer magic to access them anyway.
This could be useful if you are trying to create multiple similar methods in a loop. For example, if you're creating a click handler in a loop that relies on a loop variable to do something a little different in each handler. (I've removed the "eval" because it is unnecessary, and should generally never be used).
// Assign initial value
var src = 3;
// This is the regular js closure. Variables are saved by reference. So, changing the later will
// change the internal value.
var byref = function() {
return src;
}
// To "break" the closure or freeze the external value the external function is create and executed
// immidiatly. It is used like a constructor function which freezes the value of "src".
var byval = function(s) {
return function() { return s };
}(src);
src = 9;
alert("byref: " + byref()); // output: 9
alert("byval: " + byval()); // output: 3
As others said this doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. You should explain why you want this and what you want to achieve.
Anyway, one possible approach could be to access properties of an object inside your function. Example:
var src = 3;
function foo (context) {
context = context || window; // Fall back to the global namespace as default context
return function () {
return context.src;
}
}
function bar (func) {
var context = {src: 9};
return func(context);
}
alert(bar(foo));
If you want to access a variable in a wider scope, just don't reuse the variable name in a narrower scope.
That's how it is supposed to work. Work with it instead of trying to fight it.
Here is the code see if you can understand , closures defined within a loop .
var clicked = false;
for(var i=0;i<temp.length;i++){
(function(index){
if(clicked) return false;
$(temp[index]).on('click',function(){
if($(temp[index]).text()=="" && !$(".cell1").val()){
$(this).text(player1Val);
$(".cell1").val(true);
console.log("first player clicked ");
clicked = true;
$(this).off();
for(var j=0;j<temp.length;j++){
$(temp[j]).off('click');
}
return false;
}
else return false;
});
})(i);
}