According to the Closures concept it will store the variables of the outer lexical environment for future execution of its inner function. For example:
function makeYounger(age) {
function b() {
console.log("Original age is :" + age);
}
b();
return(function() {
return age / 2;
});
}
var displayAge = makeYounger(20);
console.log(displayAge());
In the above scenario, age is preserved by the Javascript engine to execute the inner function present in the return method.
Here comes the IIFE:
(function(window) {
var greeting = "Hello";
var fNameSpace1 = {
name : "Appu",
callName : function() {
console.log(greeting + fNameSpace1.name);
}
};
window.doer = fNameSpace1;
}) (window);
fNameSpace1.callName(); //To execute the inner function
In the above scenario according to the closures concept the variables greeting and fNameSpace1.name will be stored for future execution of the callname() function. Instead we are making use of the window object. I am confused why we are going with window if we have closures?
IIFE is useful to avoid global variable pollution when multiple functions are accessing a global variable
Closure functions are helpful when working with a local variable.
Difference between closures and IIFE's in javascript
An IIFE is just one specific way to A) Create a closure over the context in which it's defined, and B) Create a context in which to create other closures.
My question is what is the exact use of window object in this scenario if the javascript engine already stores fNameSpace1 object.Why are we creating a reference using window?
So it can be used outside the IIFE, by referring to it via the doer global that window.doer = ... creates.
There are dozens of different ways to do this. One of them does it by assigning to window like that. Another does it by returning the value and using a var statement:
var doer = (function() {
// ...
return fNamespace1;
})();
but again, there are dozens of different formations. The author of that particular one just preferred to write to a property on window as the way to create the global.
Related
I understand that every function in JavaScript is a first-class object and it has an internal property [[scope]] which hosts the binding records of the function's free variables. However, there are two special cases.
Is the function created by Function constructor also a closure? The function object created by Function constructor is special, because its [[scope]] may not refer to the lexical environments of its outer functions, but only the global context. For example,
var a = 1;
var fn = (function outer() {
var a = 2;
var inner = new Function('alert(a); ');
return inner;
})();
fn(); // will alert 1, not 2.
This is unintuitive. Is this also called closure?
If an inner function doesn't have any free variables, can we say a closure is formed when the inner function is created? For example,
// This is a useless case only for academic study
var fn = (function outer() {
var localVar1 = 1,
localVar2 = 2;
return function() {};
})();
In this case, fn refers to an empty function object which was created as an inner function. It has no free variables. In this case can we say a closure is formed?
Is the function created by Function constructor also a closure?
Yes, it closes over the global scope. That might be unintuitive because all other JavaScript closures close over their lexical scope, but it still matches our definition of a closure. In your example, a is a free variable, and resolves to the a in an other scope when the inner/fn function is called somewhere.
If an inner function doesn't have any free variables, can we still call it a closure?
Depends on whom you ask. Some say Yes, others call them "uninteresting closures", personally I say No because they don't reference an outer scope.
Note: Functions created with the Function constructor do not create
closures to their creation contexts; they always are created in the
global scope. When running them, they will only be able to access
their own local variables and global ones, not the ones from the scope
in which the Function constructor was called. This is different from
using eval with code for a function expression.
from https://developer.mozilla.org
I understand that every function in JavaScript is a first-class object and it has an internal property [[scope]] which hosts the binding records of the function's free variables. However, there are two special cases.
Is the function created by Function constructor also a closure? The function object created by Function constructor is special, because its [[scope]] may not refer to the lexical environments of its outer functions, but only the global context. For example,
var a = 1;
var fn = (function outer() {
var a = 2;
var inner = new Function('alert(a); ');
return inner;
})();
fn(); // will alert 1, not 2.
This is unintuitive. Is this also called closure?
If an inner function doesn't have any free variables, can we say a closure is formed when the inner function is created? For example,
// This is a useless case only for academic study
var fn = (function outer() {
var localVar1 = 1,
localVar2 = 2;
return function() {};
})();
In this case, fn refers to an empty function object which was created as an inner function. It has no free variables. In this case can we say a closure is formed?
Is the function created by Function constructor also a closure?
Yes, it closes over the global scope. That might be unintuitive because all other JavaScript closures close over their lexical scope, but it still matches our definition of a closure. In your example, a is a free variable, and resolves to the a in an other scope when the inner/fn function is called somewhere.
If an inner function doesn't have any free variables, can we still call it a closure?
Depends on whom you ask. Some say Yes, others call them "uninteresting closures", personally I say No because they don't reference an outer scope.
Note: Functions created with the Function constructor do not create
closures to their creation contexts; they always are created in the
global scope. When running them, they will only be able to access
their own local variables and global ones, not the ones from the scope
in which the Function constructor was called. This is different from
using eval with code for a function expression.
from https://developer.mozilla.org
I have a function which allows user to pass a function.
function withPredicate(func){
//...
}
Inside my function, I need to detect whether the func that user pass in has closure or not.
It is not enough to get the function name and search it in window scope. User might pass in an anonymous function without closure like:
var func = function(x){return x;};
withPredicate(func);
EDIT:
I think I need to implement a function which takes a function as a argument and return bool.
function hasClosure(func){
//...
}
so several test cases are:
hasClosure(function(x){return x;}); //return false
var something = 30;
var func1 = function(x){return x.age < something;}
hasClosure(func1); //return false
var Closure = function(){
var something = 18;
var itself = function(x){
return x.age < something;
};
return itself;
};
var func2 = new Closure();
hasClosure(func2); //return true
The last one return true because func2 is not top-level function. When I see some free variable inside the function body like something, it may resolve to the variable defined in its closure other than the one defined in window.
Actually, what I need to do now is to do some manipulations based on the func that has been passed to my function. I can use JSLint to get the undeclared variable. But I also need to resolve these variables. It is acceptable that I can only resolve variables in global scope. But I still need a way to make sure that resolving these variables in global scope is correct. So I need to detect closures.
Is it possible to do that programmatically in javascript?
Alright this is really hacky and probably not worth the effort in actually writing unless your linting or something :)
Basically what you're going to have to do to determine if a function is a closure is call func.toString() which will give you the source of the function. You can then parse the function using some sort of parser which determines all the variables of the function func. You also need to determine and track how these variables are defined. In your criteria in op the criteria for it being a closure is having a variable that is defined outside of function scope and outside of window scope (thus closure scope). So if you can find any variables defined outside of these two scopes we've found a closure.
So heres the pseudocode of hasClosure(), have fun implementing.
func hasClosure(func)
source = func.toString(); //eg "function x(a) {return new Array(a)}"
variables = parseJSForVariables(source)//finds a and Array
for variable in variables:
if(variable not in window)
if(variable not defined in function)
return true //we got a closure
return false //not a closure
The correct answer highly depends on what a "closure" means in this context. The function from the question does not use the variables from the outer scope so, roughly, closure is not created for this function. But strictly speaking, closure is created for any function and binds definition context with the function. So whatever you want to detect, it requires a detailed specification.
But I can assume that the closure here means whether the function references variables declared in outer scope (just like https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Closures specifies). One of the static for analysis libraries can be used for this. For example, JSLint reports used but undeclared variables. Assuming that undeclared variables are just from the upper scope, this indicates that closure is created.
Javascript closure definition says :
A "closure" is an expression (typically a function) that can have free
variables together with an environment that binds those variables
(that "closes" the expression).
Can some one explain to me the concept of free variables ? Is this concept Javascript specific or applies to other languages also ?
Free variables are simply the variables that are neither locally declared nor passed as parameter.
Source :
In computer programming, the term free variable refers to variables
used in a function that are not local variables nor parameters of that
function.1 The term non-local variable is often a synonym in this
context.
In javascript closures, those are simply the variables that the function takes (read and write) in the enclosing scope where is declared the closure or in a parent scope.
Look at this real world example :
Gol.prototype._ensureInit = function() {
...
var _this = this;
var setDim = function() {
_this.w = _this.canvas.clientWidth;
_this.h = _this.canvas.clientHeight;
_this.canvas.width = _this.w;
_this.canvas.height = _this.h;
_this.dimChanged = true;
_this.draw();
};
setDim();
window.addEventListener('resize', setDim);
...
};
In this example a closure points from the setDim function towards the variable _this declared in the enclosing scope (the _ensureInit function). This variable isn't declared in setDim nor passed. It's a "free variable".
Note that _this doesn't become a variable of the function setDim : another function declared in the same scope would share the same variable.
A "free-translation" could be: "out of scope" - variables.
Since ECMAscript uses lexical scoping, a free variable is a variable which was defined in a parent-scope and gets looked-up by a scope-chain search.
(function _outerScope() {
var foo = 42;
(function _innerScope() {
var bar = 100;
console.log( foo + bar ); // 142
}());
}());
In the above example, foo is a free variable within the context of _innerScope. it becomes very obvious if we have a quick glance into the underlying concepts of ECMAscript.
A Context is linked to an Activation Object (in ES3), respectively a Lexical Enviroment Record (in ES5), which contains things like: function declarations, variables declared with var and formal paramters, as well as a reference to all parent Activation Objects / Lexical Environments. If a variable needs to be accessed, the ECMAscript engine will first look into the AOs / LEs from the current Context itself; if it can't be found there, it looks into the parent AO's / LE's.
Since any Context stores this data in an array-like structure (don't forget we're talking about implementation level here, not Javascript itself), we are talking about Lexical Scope, because we search through all parent Contexts in order.
As an example:
var myModule = (function (){
var moduleVar; // closure variable
return function(){
// actual function
}
})();
the variable defined there is a closure variable. it can be used all over the closure itself but is not part of a global namespace.
I don't remember how many times I've read JS books and revise some topic in which the closure topic is there.
The answer is just an addition to the accepted answer.
The following example is excerpted from Modern JavaScript for the Impatient,
Cay Horstmann
// text is a free variable of the arrow function.
const sayLater = (text, when) => {
// vv
let task = () => console.log(text) // (heed no 'text' variable here) => console.log(text)
setTimeout(task, when)
}
Now you can grasp the meaning of
The term free variable refers to variables used in a function that are
not local variables nor parameters of that function.
I'm quite still confused with the concept of closure in JavaScript. I get the point that closure is the ability of the inner function to access the variable created within its mother function after the mother function has returned.
But I'm still confused why do we have to create inner function to protect the local variable if we could just create a variable inside the function?
We need to create an inner function so that the variables in the outer function have some existence after the outer function returns.
Consider a simple function:
function f() {
var x = 0;
return ++x; // x=1
} // Once the function has exited then "x" no longer exists.
Note that the variable "x" is only "active" (alive, existent) when control of the program flows from the start of the "f()" function to the end of it. But if we enclose "x" in an inner function then x will live as long as the inner function does:
function g() {
var x = 0;
return function() {
// Now "x" will live for as long as this function.
return ++x;
}
};
var counter = g();
counter(); // => 1
counter(); // => 2
counter(); // => 3
Now when we call "g()" we get another function, and "x" is active for as long as that function is referenced by a variable.
Why use closure?
(function(){
var current_page = 1;
function previous_page() {
current_page--;
// update interface
}
function next_page() {
current_page++;
// update interface
}
// a bit of jQuery, ok?
$('#previous').click(previous_page);
$('#next').click(next_page);
})();
Look: we have no global variables, not even any function defined in the global space... yet, we have attached a behaviour to the click events of "#previous" and "#next" buttons for a paging feature. How would you do it without closures? How would you do it defining current_page variable inside the functions?
You just answered your question, the inner function protects it's variable. jsFiddle
(function outer(){
var foo = 'bar';
function inner(){
var foo = 'OMG NO!';
}
alert(foo);//alerts 'bar'
})()
FROM MDN CLOSURES
why to use:
A closure lets you associate some data (the environment) with a function that operates on that data. This has obvious parallels to object oriented programming, where objects allow us to associate some data (the object's properties) with one or more methods.
when not to use
It is unwise to unnecessarily create functions within other functions if closures are not needed for a particular task as it will negatively affect script performance both in terms of processing speed and memory consumption.
For instance, when creating a new object/class, methods should normally be associated to the object's prototype rather than defined into the object constructor. The reason is that whenever the constructor is called the methods would get reassigned (that is, for every object creation).
The reason you need to create the inner function with scoped variables is object oriented encapsulation. It's essentially private variables.
The variables are "closed over".
// constructor function
var myObject = function(message) {
// private - scope is function level. It's CLOSED OVER the the inner function (closure).
// not delcared as a JSON property so not visible externally
var value = 0;
// constructor returns JSON object with public methods
// always constructed from the myObject var so it always hands back the same instance
// of the public methods
return {
// nested functions have access to outer function variables.
increment: function (inc) {
value ++;
},
getValue: function() {
return value;
},
// the inner function even has access to the outer function's args!
getMessage: message
}
};
Look at the return statement. It returns the public interface - some methods that have access to the private variable because they are in the inner function. It's using JavaScripts function scoped variable to create object oriented encapsulation.
After that I can it like:
var obj = myObject('Hello World');
obj.increment();
obj.increment();
console.log(obj.getValue());
console.log(obj.getMessage);
// should be undefined
console.log(obj.value);
Note at this point the consumer does not have access to the protected/encapsulated value or message.
Now, here's the kicker - the object is mutable so the caller can add methods or even replace methods. So, you would think someone could add a method that exposes the internals. But, they can't because of function scope (closure - they're closed over). Only the nested function has access to the variables of the outer function. So, if the caller adds a method to return the internal, they can't get access and it will be undefined.
The code above outputs:
2
Hello World
undefined
As a side note, I'm running the javascript with node.js
Here's a good blog post on the module pattern using closures:
http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/module-pattern/
The point is that the variable is shared between the two functions. If you declared the variable in the inner function, then the outer function would not be able to access it, so it wouldn't be shared.
If you declared the variable in the inner function, then each call to the inner function would create a new variable: any modifications made by a previous call are lost.
But if the variable is declared in the outer function then multiple calls to the inner function would see the same variable and one call would see the modifications of a previous call so long as they were both scoped to the same version of the outer function.
There are alot of right answers out there about closures, but it always seems to get really technical while many people asking might be looking for a higher level simple explanation first.
I like to think of it like a car. When you drive a car, there are many many complex processes going on, but the average person doesn't need to know about these on an average day. Think of all those complexities as "private" variables hidden away by closures which makes the gas pedal, the break, the shifter, the steering wheel, and so on a lot easier to use.
So what is the purpose of a closure? To hide away all the complex variables and such to make a script much more usable. If you had to worry about every variable in a script everytime you wanted to use any function in the script, well that could quickly get very difficult. YAY CLOSURES!