We Keep Coding

Concept about anonymous function and invoke in javascript [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How do JavaScript closures work?
(86 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
Now I have to solve a exercise in the exercise from freecodecamp.
The outcome are expected as follows:
addTogether(2, 3) should return 5.
addTogether(2)(3) should return 5.
addTogether("This is sth") should return undefined.
addTogether(2, "3") should return undefined.
addTogether(2)([3]) should return undefined.
And by referring to some suggested solutions, one of the solutions is like:
function add(){
var args= [].slice.call(arguments);
if (!args.every(function(argument){return typeof argument === 'number';})){
return undefined;
}
if(args.length === 2){
return args[0] + args[1];
} else {
var a = args[0];
var addOne = function(b){
return add(a,b);
};
return addOne;
}
return false
}
add(2)(3)
In here, I am not really sure, why in the variable addOne, the anonymous function will successfully capture the the value in the second brackets, after calling the first value before?
I seek for the information about JavaScript function invocation, but still do not 100% sure why...
Edited:
With the features of closure, because I have already extracted the first parentheses, the next closure i.e the function, will automatically take the second input? And in this case, if I want to do addTogether(2)(3)(4)(5) , then I can do that by creating closures within different parentheses e.g
var a = args[0];
var addOne = function(b){
var addTwo = function(c){
var addThree = function(d){
return a+b+c+d;
}
}
};
Do I understand in the correct sense?

In here, I am not really sure, why in the variable addOne, the
anonymous function will successfully capture the the value in the
second brackets, after calling the first value before?
Because, when you say, addTogether(2), it means you're calling a function and passing it an integer 2, and when you say addTogether(2)(3), it means, you're calling a function and passing it an integer 2, which is then returning a function, to which you're passing the integer 3.
So, when the code says return addOne, it is returning the function which is called with the second parentheses, (3), so addTogether gets the value 2 and the return of addTogether, which is addOne gets the value 3.

Is it possible to add a value when returning a function from a recursive function being chained? [duplicate]

I'm trying to solve a puzzle, and am at my wit's end trying to figure it out.
I'm supposed to make a function that works like this:
add(1); //returns 1
add(1)(1); //returns 2
add(1)(1)(1); //returns 3
I know it can be done because other people have successfully completed the puzzle. I have tried several different ways to do it. This is my most recent attempt:
function add(n) {
//Return new add(n) on first call
if (!(this instanceof add)) {
return new add(n);
}
//Define calc function
var obj = this;
obj.calc = function(n) {
if (typeof n != "undefined") {
obj.sum += n;
return obj.calc;
}
return obj.sum;
}
//Constructor initializes sum and returns calc(n)
obj.sum = 0;
return obj.calc(n);
}
The idea is that on the first call, a new add(n) is initialized and calc(n) is run. If calc receives a parameter, it adds n to sum and returns itself. When it eventually doesn't receive a parameter, it returns the value of sum.
It makes sense in theory, but I can't get it to work. Any ideas?
--edit--
My code is just the route I chose to go. I'm not opposed to a different approach if anyone can think of one.

To answer "how dow this work". Given:
function add(n) {
function calc(x) {
return add(n + x);
}
calc.valueOf = function() {
return n;
}
return calc;
}
var sum = add(1)(2)(3); // 6
When add is called the first time, it stores the value passed in in a variable called n. It then returns the function calc, which has a closure to n and a special valueOf method (explained later).
This function is then called with a value of 2, so it calls add with the sum of n + x, wich is 1 + 2 which 3.
So a new version of calc is returned, this time with a closure to n with a value of 3.
This new calc is called with a value of 3, so it calls add with n + x, which this time is 3 + 3 which is 6
Again add returns a new calc with n set to 6. This last time, calc isn't called again. The returned value is assigned to the variable sum. All of the calc functions have a special valueOf method that replaces the standard one provided by Object.prototype. Normally valueOf would just return the function object, but in this case it will return the value of n.
Now sum can be used in expressions, and if its valueOf method is called it will return 6 (i.e. the value of n held in a closure).
This seems pretty cool, and sum will act a lot like a primitve number, but it's actually a function:
typeof sum == 'function';
So be careful with being strict about testing the type of things:
sum * 2 // 12
sum == 6 // true
sum === 6 // false -- oops!!

Here's a somewhat streamlined version of #RobG's great answer:
function add(n) {
function calc(x) { return n+=x, calc; }
calc.valueOf = function() { return n; };
return calc;
}
The minor difference is that here calc just updates n and then returns itself, rather than returning itself via another call to add, which puts another frame on the stack.
Making self-replication explicit
calc is thus a pure self-replicating function, returning itself. We can encapsulate the notion of "self replication" with the function
function self_replicate(fn) {
return function x() {
fn.apply(this, arguments);
return x;
};
}
Then add could be written in a possibly more self-documenting way as
function add(n) {
function update(x) { n += x; }
var calc = self_replicate(update);
calc.valueOf = function() { return n; };
return calc;
}
Parallel to Array#reduce
Note that there is a certain parallelity between this approach to repeatedly calling a function and Array#reduce. Both are reducing a list of things to a single value. In the case of Array#reduce the list is an array; in our case the list is parameters on repeated calls. Array#reduce defines a standard signature for reducer functions, namely
function(prev, cur)
where prev is the "accumulator" (value so far), cur is the new value being fed in, and the return value becomes the new value the accumulator. It seems useful to rewrite our implementation to make use of a function with that kind of signature:
function add(n) {
function reducer(prev, cur) { return prev + cur; }
function update(x) { n = reducer(n, x); }
var calc = self_replicate(update);
calc.valueOf = function() { return n; };
return calc;
}
Now we can create a more general way to create self-replication-based reducers based on a reducer function:
function make_repeatedly_callable_function(reducer) {
return function(n) {
function update(x) { n = reducer(n, x); }
var calc = self_replicate(update);
calc.valueOf = function() { return n; };
return calc;
};
}
Now we can create add as
var add = make_repeatedly_callable_function(function(prev, cur) { return prev + cur; });
add(1)(2);
Actually, Array#reduce calls the reducer function with third and fourth arguments, namely the index into the array and the array itself. The latter has no meaning here, but it's conceivable we might want something like the third argument to know what "iteration" we're on, which is easy enough to do by just keeping track using a variable i:
function reduce_by_calling_repeatedly(reducer) {
var i = 0;
return function(n) {
function update(x) { n = reducer( n, x, i++); }
var calc = self_replicate(update);
calc.valueOf = function() { return n; };
return calc;
};
}
Alternative approach: keeping track of values
There are certain advantages to keeping track of the intermediate parameters the function is being called with (using an array), and then doing the reduce at the end instead of as we go along. For instance, then we could do Array#reduceRight type things:
function reduce_right_by_calling_repeatedly(reducer, initialValue) {
var array_proto = Array.prototype,
push = array_proto.push,
reduceRight = array_proto.reduceRight;
return function(n) {
var stack=[],
calc = self_replicate(push.bind(stack));
calc.valueOf = reduceRight.bind(stack, reducer, initialValue);
return calc(n);
};
}
Non-primitive objects
Let's try using this approach to build ("extend") objects:
function extend_reducer(prev, cur) {
for (i in cur) {
prev[i] = cur[i];
}
return prev;
}
var extend = reduce_by_calling_repeatedly(extend_reducer);
extend({a: 1})({b: 2})
Unfortunately, this won't work because Object#toValue is invoked only when JS needs a primitive object. So in this case we need to call toValue explicitly:
extend({a: 1})({b: 2}).toValue()

Thanks for the tip on valueOf(). This is what works:
function add(n) {
var calc = function(x) {
return add(n + x);
}
calc.valueOf = function() {
return n;
}
return calc;
}
--edit--
Could you please explain how this works? Thanks!
I don't know if I know the correct vocabulary to describe exactly how it works, but I'll attempt to:
Example statement: add(1)(1)
When add(1) is called, a reference to calc is returned.
calc understands what n is because, in the "mind" of the interpreter, calc is a function child of add. When calc looks for n and doesn't find it locally, it searches up the scope chain and finds n.
So when calc(1) is called, it returns add(n + x). Remember, calc knows what n is, and x is simply the current argument (1). The addition is actually done inside of calc, so it returns add(2) at this point, which in turn returns another reference to calc.
Step 2 can repeats every time we have another argument (i.e. (x)).
When there aren't any arguments left, we are left with just a definition of calc. The last calc is never actually called, because you need a () to call a function. At this point, normally the interpreter would return a the function object of calc. But since I overrode calc.valueOf it runs that function instead.
When calc.valueOf runs, it finds the most recent instance of n in the scope chain, which is the cumulative value of all previous n's.
I hope that made some sense. I just saw #RobG 's explanation, which is admittedly much better than mine. Read that one if you're confused.

Here's a variation using bind:
var add = function _add(a, b) {
var boundAdd = _add.bind(null, a + b);
boundAdd.valueOf = function() {
return a + b;
}
return boundAdd;
}.bind(null, 0);
We're taking advantage of a feature of bind that lets us set default arguments on the function we're binding to. From the docs:
bind() also accepts leading default arguments to provide to the target
function when the bound function is called.
So, _add acts as a sort of master function which takes two parameters a and b. It returns a new function boundAdd which is created by binding the original _add function's a parameter to a + b; it also has an overridden valueOf function which returns a + b (the valueOf function was explained quite well in #RobG's answer).
To get the initial add function, we bind _add's a parameter to 0.
Then, when add(1) is called, a = 0 (from our initial bind call) and b = 1 (passed argument). It returns a new function where a = 1 (bound to a + b).
If we then call that function with (2), that will set b = 2 and it'll return a new function where a = 3.
If we then call that function with (3), that will set b = 3 and it'll return a new function where a = 6.
And so on until valueOf is called, at which point it'll return a + b. Which, after add(1)(2)(3), would be 3 + 3.

This is a very simple approach and it meets the criteria the OP was looking for. Namely, the function is passed an integer, keeps track of that integer, and returns itself as a function. If a parameter is not passed - the function returns the sum of the integers passed to it.
let intArray = [];
function add(int){
if(!int){
return intArray.reduce((prev, curr) => prev + curr)
}
intArray.push(int)
return add
}
If you call this like so:
console.log(add(1)(1)());
it outputs 2.

Calling a JavaScript function several times (ex: myFunc(1,2,3)(1,2)(2); ) [duplicate]

I trying to make next with closure:
function func(number) {
var result = number;
var res = function(num) {
return result + num;
};
return res;
}
var result = func(2)(3)(4)(5)(3);
console.log(result); // 17
I need to receive 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 3 = 17
But I got an error: Uncaught TypeError: number is not a function

You somehow have to signalize the end of the chain, where you are going to return the result number instead of another function. You have the choice:
make it return a function for a fixed number of times - this is the only way to use the syntax like you have it, but it's boring. Look at #PaulS' answer for that. You might make the first invocation (func(n)) provide the number for how many arguments sum is curried.
return the result under certain circumstances, like when the function is called with no arguments (#PaulS' second implementation) or with a special value (null in #AmoghTalpallikar's answer).
create a method on the function object that returns the value. valueOf() is suited well because it will be invoked when the function is casted to a primitive value. See it in action:
function func(x) {
function ret(y) {
return func(x+y);
}
ret.valueOf = function() {
return x;
};
return ret;
}
func(2) // Function
func(2).valueOf() // 2
func(2)(3) // Function
func(2)(3).valueOf() // 5
func(2)(3)(4)(5)(3) // Function
func(2)(3)(4)(5)(3)+0 // 17

You're misusing your functions.
func(2) returns the res function.
Calling that function with (3) returns the number 5 (via return result + num).
5 is not a function, so (4) gives an error.

Well, the (2)(3) part is correct. Calling func(2) is going to return you res, which is a function. But then, calling (3) is going to return you the result of res, which is a number. So the problem comes when you try to call (4).
For what you're trying to do, I don't see how Javascript would predict that you're at the end of the chain, and decide to return a number instead of a function. Maybe you could somehow return a function that has a "result" property using object properties, but mostly I'm just curious about why you're trying to do things this way. Obviously, for your specific example, the easiest way would just be adding the numbers together, but I'm guessing you're going a bit further with something.

If you want to keep invoking it, you need to keep returning a function until you want your answer. e.g. for 5 invocations
function func(number) {
var result = number,
iteration = 0,
fn = function (num) {
result += num;
if (++iteration < 4) return fn;
return result;
};
return fn;
}
func(2)(3)(4)(5)(3); // 17
You could also do something for more lengths that works like this
function func(number) {
var result = number,
fn = function () {
var i;
for (i = 0; i < arguments.length; ++i)
result += arguments[i];
if (i !== 0) return fn;
return result;
};
return fn;
}
func(2)(3, 4, 5)(3)(); // 17

I flagged this as a duplicate, but since this alternative is also missing from that question I'll add it here. If I understand correctly why you would think this is interesting (having an arbitrary function that is applied sequentially to a list of values, accumulating the result), you should also look into reduce:
function sum(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
a = [2, 3, 4, 5, 3];
b = a.reduce(sum);

Another solution could be just calling the function without params in order to get the result but if you call it with params it adds to the sum.
function add() {
var sum = 0;
var closure = function() {
sum = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).reduce(function(total, num) {
return total + num;
}, sum);
return arguments.length ? closure : sum;
};
return closure.apply(null, arguments);
}
console.log(add(1, 2, 7)(5)(4)(2, 3)(3.14, 2.86)); // function(){}
console.log(add(1, 2, 7)(5)(4)(2, 3)(3.14, 2.86)()); // 30;

We can make light work of it using a couple helper functions identity and sumk.
sumk uses a continuation to keep a stack of the pending add computations and unwinds the stack with 0 whenever the first () is called.
const identity = x => x
const sumk = (x,k) =>
x === undefined ? k(0) : y => sumk(y, next => k(x + next))
const sum = x => sumk(x, identity)
console.log(sum()) // 0
console.log(sum(1)()) // 1
console.log(sum(1)(2)()) // 3
console.log(sum(1)(2)(3)()) // 6
console.log(sum(1)(2)(3)(4)()) // 10
console.log(sum(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)()) // 15

create a function that will add numbers together when called in succession [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I need a single function which will return the below output.
add(1) = 1
add(1)(2) = 3
add(1)(2)(3) = 6
like wise the function should return the result.
I want a function function add(){} to perform the above task.
Please help me with an optimized solution

Thanks to #ermouth for initial code.
var add = (function() {
var factory = function(value) {
var fn = function(num) {
return factory(value + num);
};
// This is the main hack:
// We will return a function that when compared / concatted will call .toString and return a number.
// Never use this in production code...
fn.toString = function() {
return value;
};
return fn;
};
return factory(0);
})();
add(1); // 1
add(1); // 1
add(1)(2); // 3
add(1)(2)(3); // 6
But beware of equal comparation:
add(2) == add(2) // false
add(2) > add(1) // true
add(2) < add(1) // false

You should wrap your function in a closure and redefine function’s toString method.
var add = (function(initNum) {
var current = initNum || 0;
var fn = function(num) {
current += num;
return fn;
};
fn.toString = function() {
return current
};
return fn;
})(0);
add(1) → 1, then add(2)(3)(4) → 10

try this:
function add() {
var erg = 0;
for(var i in arguments)
erg += arguments[i];
return erg;
}
you can call it like add(1,2,3);

Either you were given a trick question, or you've misunderstood the problem.
You cannot write a function that does this in pure JavaScript (or, for that matter, almost any other language). The problem is that it has to return a number the last time it's called, and a function at all other times. This would be doable if you knew in advance how many times your function is going to be called, but if I understand your question correctly, then you don't know that in advance. You'd need to be able to foretell the future to know when the function would be called for the last time.
You could also do this in a language with macros that let you inspect the syntax of your code as it's being run. This would let you know how long the current chain of calls is, so you'd know when to return a number instead of a function. But JavaScript doesn't do this; in fact, most languages don't.
Is it possible that your interviewers were looking for an add() function that takes a variable number of arguments? That's much easier:
function add() {
return Array.prototype.reduce.call(
arguments,
function (sum, next) {
return sum + next;
},
0
);
}

how compare two static function are equal or not in javascript [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
how do I compare 2 functions in javascript
(6 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
how to compare two static functions in javascript equal or not equal?

String(f1) === String(f2)

var f1 = f2 = function( a ){ return a; };
here, you can use f1 === f2 because they're pointing to the same memory and they're the same type
var f1 = function( a ){ return a; },
f2 = function( a ){ return a; };
here you can use that byte-saver Andy E used (which is implicitly converting the function to it's body's text as a String),
''+f1 == ''+f2.
this is the gist of what is happening behind the scences:
f1.toString( ) == f2.toString( )
Edit: Looking back on this post over a year after, I agree with #kangax - you should probably never do this.

Whenever I need to compare functions I make sure there is no scope ambiguity and use the same function object.
Say I have some a pair of library functions that take a callback as one of the parameters. For the sake of this example create1minuteCallback function will set a 1 minute timer and call the callback on each tick. kill1minuteCallback will turn off the callback and you must pass the same callback function as you did for create1minuteCallback.
function create1minuteCallback(callback){
//implementation
}
function kill1minuteCallback(callback){
//implementation
}
Quite clearly this will not work as the function we are passing is different on the second line:
create1minuteCallback(function(){alert("1 minute callback is called");});
kill1minuteCallback(function(){alert("1 minute callback is called");});
I normally do this:
function callbackFunc(){alert("1 minute callback is called");}
create1minuteCallback(callbackFunc);
kill1minuteCallback(callbackFunc);

Well, as simply as that - if you are going to compare functions, you do it for a reason I assume. What is your reason?
My reason was to not run a certain function twice.
I did it this way (just snippet code to get the idea)
var x = function(){
console.error("i am a functionX");
}
var y = function(){
console.error("i am a functionX");
}
var z = function(){
console.error("i am a functionZ");
}
var x2= x;
var obj = new Object();
obj[x] = "";
obj[x2] = "";
obj[y] = "";
obj[z] = "";
obj.abc = "xaxa";
for (prop in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
console.error(obj[prop] + " hello " + prop);
}
}
Function x and y are the same, even though they have different whitespaces. x and y are not the same as z, since z has a different console.error.
Btw open your firebug console to see it in the jsbin example