As I understand it, Javascript doesn’t compile, it only runs. So there should be no compile-time errors, only runtime errors. So why doesn’t this code work?
function show() { console.log(x); }
(function () {
var x = 42;
show();
})()
My question isn’t on how to make this code better; I realize it is bad code and I already know how to fix it (see below).
My question is, why am I getting an Uncaught ReferenceError? If Javascript only throws errors at runtime, it should know that x == 42 at the time it calls show(), which is inside the anonymous function, correct?
working code:
(function () {
var x = 42;
function show() { console.log(x); }
show();
})()
working code, best option:
function show(y) { console.log(y); }
(function () {
var x = 42;
show(x);
})()
Note:Below description is as of ES5, NOT ES6 since in ES6 scoping rules have been changed(due to introduction of let).
Javascript does compile. It's just that like other languages such as c++/c# there is NO intermediate thing like exe/IL code that need to be clicked to start execution. In JS execution starts after compile phase.
So, when the compilation happens the compiler looks for function declaration and var declaration for variables. Therefore for this IIFE,
(function () {
var x = 42;
show();
})();
It does find one var declaration and the variable x is registered in the scope of the IIFE. This is called variable hoisting and x is available at the function level, in this case IIFE.
Later at execution time, the IIFE looks like this(conceptually):
(function () {
//registration of x in this function's scope has already happened at
//compile time. Notice absence of `var`
x = 42;
show();
})();
Now, at this time the engine talks to scope and asks for lvalue reference of x. Since x was registered in IIFE, engine gets one and then 42 is assigned to it.
Now for this part:
function show() { console.log(x); }
When show is called, engine first asks scope of show function for x, since it doesn't have any variable registered with the name x, global scope is asked( rvalue reference) for x, since it was never registered with global scope either during compilation phase, it cannot be found in any of the scope and we get reference error.
it should know that x == 42 at the time it calls show(), which is inside the anonymous function, correct?
Because of scoping rules, variables in outer scopes are visible in inner scope but not vice-versa. x inside IIFE is visible at the IIFE level and not outside in outer scope.
Variable hoisting in JS is fun.
It's saying giving you the Reference Error because you've defined x inside of a closure (a function defined inside another function), meaning it's not available in the global scope and the show() method doesn't know it exists. If you defined it first, globally, it would of course work.
That said, scoping has been significantly improved in ES6+ with the use of let and const, so unless you're stuck with vanilla JS you'll probably find those to give a much more consistent and predictable coding experience.
This is a useful read on the subject: How do JavaScript closures work?
show function gets scope where it's declared, not invoked.
Related
I'm learning JS by reading a book (Learning JavaScript by Ethan Brown) where author writes:
Lexical scoping means whatever variables are in scope where you define
a function from (as opposed to when you call it) are in scope in the
function. Consider this example:
const x = 3;
function f() {
console.log(x); // this will work
console.log(y); // this will cause a crash
}
const y = 3;
f();
The variable x exists when we define the function f , but y doesn’t.
Then we declare y and call f , and see that x is in scope inside the
body of f when it’s called, but y isn’t. This is an example of lexical
scoping: the function f has access to the identifiers that
were available when it was defined, not when it was called
When I run it in VS Code debugger, there doesn't seem to be any errors.
I see
3
3
without any exceptions. Can this depend on ES version that I'm using or something else?
Though I think the author simply chose a poor (well, incorrect) piece of code to illustrate the point, the code is interesting as a way to illustrate something related but different. Because y is declared with const, it is visible inside the function because its declaration is hoisted to the nearest enclosing block (which is not explicitly visible in the posted code, but it must be there somewhere). However, if the function call is moved to before that declaration, you will see an error because the reference to y will happen in the somewhat weirdly-named "temporal dead zone". References to declared but uninitialized variables created with let or const are runtime errors.
If the declaration of y is changed to a var declaration, then moving the function call to before variable declaration does not cause an error because the variable is defined and in scope but is simply (old-school) uninitialized, and therefore simply undefined.
This works because const y=3 is declared before f() is called. If you move the declaration of y after f() then it will work as "expected"
In a comment on another thread I started, someone said this:
#adlwalrus yes. try this: var foo = function bar(){}; console.log(foo); But be aware that bar is only function name (what does it mean I'm not sure exactly myself) and not a reference to it, so you can't call it by doing bar(). And assigning (even named function) is not the same as declaring a function. Hoisting (bumping to top of the scope) only works for declarations, assignment will stay in place. – valentinas 6 hours ago
What purpose does a function name serve if you can't call it with bar()?
For the function to call itself.
var x = function y(val){
if (val){
console.log(val);
y(val-1);
}
};
x(5);
> 3
> 2
> 1
y(3);
> ReferenceError: y is not defined
You're referring to a named function expression. The spec requires that the name of such functions only be available within the scope of the new function. Spec quote:
The Identifier in a FunctionExpression can be referenced from inside
the FunctionExpression's FunctionBody to allow the function to call
itself recursively. However, unlike in a FunctionDeclaration, the
Identifier in a FunctionExpression cannot be referenced from and does
not affect the scope enclosing the FunctionExpression.
On the other hand, the result of that expression is a reference to the new function, which can be saved and referenced anywhere.
Lots of details here:
http://kangax.github.com/nfe/#named-expr
I'd read the whole thing.
As for benefits, another is that it makes them easier to identify in a debugger.
There are two ways to create a function in JavaScript, a "function declaration" and a "function expression." I believe it was Doug Crockford who explained it best when he pointed out that unless "function" is the very first set of characters on a given line, you're performing a function expression (not a declaration).
Function declarations are finicky creatures. You'll recognize them when you see them. They look like this:
function foo() { /* ... */ }
They're always given a name (it's requited) and the name is locally scoped to the lexical context under which the function is declared. So if you perform a function declaration in the global context, then the function can be referenced via it's name globally. If you do it within a function, the function's name can be referenced only within that function and any functions declared within that function.
I think the most important aspect of this method of declaring a function (one that is rarely commented on) is that the function initialization gets hoisted to the top of the current lexical context. Therefore, you should never, ever use a function declaration within a conditional, such as this:
//DON'T DO THIS!
if (x) {
function foo() { return 1; }
} else {
function foo() { return 2; }
}
foo(); //will always be 2, regardless of the value of x.
A function expression is slightly different. Often, they're directly assigned to a variable, like so:
var foo = function() { /* ... */ };
This is nearly identical to the function declaration above except that the initialization is not hoisted. So you can do the following:
var foo;
if (x) {
foo = function() { return 1; };
} else {
foo = function() { return 2; };
}
foo(); //will be 1 or 2, depending on the truthy-ness of x.
So, back to the original question. Function expressions can also have a name, though it's not required and it's not scoped to the context in which the function is declared (as with function declarations). Instead, it gets scoped to the function's own lexical context. This is very useful in some cases. My personal favorite is this pattern:
(function foo() {
//Do something.
setTimeout(foo, 1000);
}());
foo; //undefined
Because of the parenthesis before the word "function", this is a function expression and the name is scoped internally only. But that's okay, because we only need to call it internally (via setTimeout()). The result is that the function will execute once immediately, then will re-execute every second or so after it's finishes execution. This is safer than using setInterval() because it will wait until it's done executing before rescheduling itself, preventing overlaps that could cause missed executions and/or "domination" of the JavaScript thread.
Essentially, the use of a named function expression is limited, but when you need it, it's very powerful.
I have a 3rd party JavaScript application that declares several global functions and needs some variables to be defined for those functions to work. I would rather not define those variables in the global scope. Here's an example:
Suppose you have a globally defined function foo that prints out the value of an externally-defined variable named x.
function foo() {
console.log(x);
}
I think the only way for x to have a value within foo is if x is also a global. I hope I'm wrong. What I would really like to do is this:
(function () {
var x = 'someValue';
var bar = magicallyFixSoXIsntGlobal(foo);
bar();
}());
I guess I could do:
(function () {
var x = 'someValue';
var bar = Function(foo.toString());
bar();
}());
But that seems pretty much like eval. (If it comes down to that, I'd rather have global spam than use eval.)
Is there any way to "fix" the global functions so they can refer to the enclosed values?
Assign a value to a window's property, call the function, then use the delete operator to truly remove the variable.
window.foo = 'bar';
magic();
delete window.foo; // Because `foo` is defined without `var`, it can be deleted
The obvious solution is to modify foo to take x as a variable. But, assuming you can't / don't want to do that, I can think of two options:
declare x as a global variable.
Wrap foo's declaration in a closure.
The first will certainly make foo work, but please don't take Rob W's approach. Remember that the reason people tell you "don't clutter the global namespace" isn't because they're worried about unused variables hanging around (that can be a problem, but it's not specific to the global namespace). It's because having multiple functions using the same namespace increases the chances that one will overwrite the other's variables. Here's how you would use the global x without bludgeoning the rest of your code.
!function(x, exists) {
window.x=10;
foo();
if(exists)
window.x=x;
else
delete window.x;
}(window.x, 'x' in window);
The second option shouldn't be too hard if foo is currently just a function declaration within your code. In that case, change it to:
!function() {
var x=10;
function foo() {
[...]
}
// foo can only be called within this block
}();
Or if foo must be global, but you still don't want x to be global:
!function() {
var x=10;
window.foo=function() {
[...]
};
// now foo can be called anywhere, and will still use the x declared above
}();
But if foo is included via an external script then it gets more complicated, and I don't think you could use this method without modifying foo. (You could also use ajax and eval, or just eval, but I think you're right in avoiding that function.)
This is what function parameters are for
function foo(x) {
console.log(x)
}
You could hack it horrible if you wanted by converting the function to a string and creating a new function which accepts parameters, but that's dirty as hell
Just now,I saw some code like this:
if(condition){
var xx='sss';
}
//do something
if(condition){
console.info(xx);
}
Now, I just wonder why the second if statement work? How can it access the xx variable since it is a local variable defined in another if statement?
var in JavaScript is scoped to the containing execution context (e.g., the whole function's scope, or the whole global scope if the var is at global scope), not the block. JavaScript doesn't (yet) have block scope (ECMAScript6 looks likely to add it, via the new let keyword).
The code you've quoted is exactly equivalent to this:
var xx;
if(condition){
xx='sss';
}
//do something
if(condition){
console.info(xx);
}
This is covered by Section 10.5 of the specification, which describes what the engine does when entering a new execution context. (It's basically a two-phase process, first setting up all the declarations, and then executing step-by-step code.)
More: Poor misunderstood var
In JavaScript the scope is exacted to the closure (the last enclosing function block, or defaults to the window object). When a variable is declared anywhere within that function block it is hoisted to the top of the scope, so in essence a variable exists as undefined starting at the very top of the scope if it is declared anywhere in the scope.
Think of it like this, when the code begins executing it scans all the instructions for declarations and allocates the symbol name starting immediately.
console.log(x); // undefined
console.log(y); // error: Uncaught ReferenceError: y is not defined
var x;
for that matter you can take it to extremes:
console.log(x); // undefined, not an error
while (false) {
if (false) {
var x;
}
}
even though var x can't possibly be reached, and during execution would be optimized away completely. the engine will still hoist the variable to the top of the scope
hope this helps -ck
useful link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taaEzHI9xyY&feature=youtu.be#t=42m57s
var declarations affect the entire scope of the smallest containing function or program. JavaScript is not block scoped.
Crock says:
Variable Declarations
All variables should be declared before used. JavaScript does not require this, but doing so makes the program easier to read and makes it easier to detect undeclared variables that may become implied globals. Implied global variables should never be used.
The var statements should be the first statements in the function body.
It is preferred that each variable be given its own line and comment. They should be listed in alphabetical order.
var currentEntry; // currently selected table entry
var level; // indentation level
var size; // size of table
JavaScript does not have block scope, so defining variables in blocks can confuse programmers who are experienced with other C family languages. Define all variables at the top of the function.
Use of global variables should be minimized. Implied global variables should never be used.
Note, this is changing with the let statement, and in current JavaScript (EcmaScript 5), the variable name in a catch block is block scoped.
javascript doesn't have block scope, so var xx='sss' is either locally scoped (if your sample code is inside a function) or globally scoped (if your sample code is not contained in a function).
JavaScript is a dynamic language, that isn't always picky about things like variable scoping. So, this "feature" allows you to write the code
if (condition) {
var xx = 'sss';
} else {
var xx = 'ttt';
}
// do something
if (condition) {
console.info(xx);
}
I would recommend avoiding this, since it makes your program harder to understanda and reason about.
If you declare a variable using var within a function, the variable is scoped to within that function. An if statement is not a function.
I'm assuming in this case both if statements are within the same function and therefore xx is in scope?
If a variable is declared inside a conditional statement, it is still available anywhere following the declaration in the containing function (or globally if the conditional is not in a function). However, it will equal undefined if the condition evaluates to false, unless the variable is later assigned a value.
If a local variable is referenced globally or in another function, a JavaScript error will occur. Depending on your browser, the error may say the variable "is not defined" or "is undefined". This is different from the variable equaling undefined like mentioned above, because a variable that equals undefined can still be referenced.
This isn't actually a specific issue I have but something I'd like to educate myself on:
As far as I understand, in JavaScript the following code
if (true) {
function greet(){ alert("Hello!"); }
} else {
function greet(){ alert("Hi!"); }
}
greet();
outputs Hi! because the code is actually evaluated as something like this:
greet = function(){ alert("Hello!"); }
greet = function(){ alert("Hi!"); }
if(true){
// possibly a no-op assignment, such as greet = greet?
}else{
// same as the other branch?
}
greet();
From a language design perspective, why does JavaScript behave in this way?
Named functions are created before the code starts, so that you don't have to put the declaration of a function before the code that uses it:
x(); // this is possible because the function already exists
function x() {}
It doesn't matter where the function declaration is, even if it's inside a flow control structure, it's still created before the code starts. So, there is no executable code at all inside the if statement in your example, not even a no-op assignment.
If you want to assign function declarations dynamically, you have use a variable:
var greet;
if (true) {
greet = function(){ alert("Hello!"); }
} else {
greet = function(){ alert("Hi!"); }
}
greet();
You don't have to use anonymous functions though, you could assign one of two named functions to the variable.
You may have found a quirk of the language and if you look a bit further you will also find different implementations.
ECMAScript processing has two phases - in the first, all declarations are processed to create named properties within the scope of their declaration. In the second, the code is executed. So declared functions and variables are available in their declared scope from the start of execution, regardless of where in the code they are declared.
And those that are created or assigned values by assignment will have values only when the assignment code is executed.
So:
// Call x
x();
// Declare x
function x(){}
works without error. This is colloquially called "hoisting", meaning declarations are "hoisted" to the top of the scope.
However, to paraphrase your example:
if (true) {
function x(){
alert('true x');
}
} else {
function x(){
alert('false x');
}
}
// In most browsers
x(); // false x
// But in Firefox
x(); // true x
For most browsers, the second declaration overrides the first. That is because ECMAScript does not have block scope, only function and global scope.
However, in this case extensions are allowed to the language. Firefox treats the above as named function expressions, hence is shows true x. More importantly, because other browsers treat the expressions as declarations, x can be called from above the code block but in Firefox it can't, you'll get an error.
The bottom line is if you want to conditionally assign a function to a named parameter or variable, do it explicitly like:
var x;
if (true) {
x = function (){
alert('true x');
};
} else {
x = function (){
alert('false x');
};
}
so that you get consistent behaviour. And you must also remember that x will not be a function until after the code has been executed, it will not be "hoisted" because it isn't a declaration.
First, it does not always behave in this way. In the case of Function Expressions function object is only available in the internal scope.
Second, when you define a function it is very likely that you want to use it in the current scope. So it is very natural that it will become available in the current scope. Consider that the enclosing scope (depending on the function definition location) is the global object or the enclosing function body not the if block.
Now, I can reduce your question to the following question:
Why the function name is used as the variable name?
A : Otherwise developers have to always assign function to a variable (which I prefer).