Related
let worker = {
slow(min, max) {
alert(`Called with ${min},${max}`);
return min + max;
}
};
function cachingDecorator(func, hash) {
let cache = new Map();
return function() {
let key = hash(arguments); //...arguments also works, but only with this name, another no, why?
if (cache.has(key)) {
return cache.get(key);
}
let result = func.call(this, ...arguments);
cache.set(key, result);
return result;
};
}
function hash(args) {
return args[0] + ',' + args[1];
}
worker.slow = cachingDecorator(worker.slow, hash);
alert( worker.slow(3, 5) ); // works
alert( "Again " + worker.slow(3, 5) ); // same (cached)
It's about using decorator function. First call is calculated, and then it's cashed and is taken from cash.
I've read, that arguments object it's old way to use rest parameter, and it can be replaced. Then why when I try to replace arguments object in let key = hash(arguments)
return function() {
let key = hash(arguments);
if (cache.has(key)) {
return cache.get(key);
}
to rest parameter, it doesn't work...
Actually it works, but only if add ...(...arguments), but it doesn't if
change on smth else(I mean arguments), e.g arr, ars etc. Why?
'arguments object it's old way to use rest parameter, and it can be
replaced'
Actually, they are different.
Any function declared with keyword 'function' has an object 'arguments' which can be used inside of function. Even if you have use rest operator inside, it still available as well as your 'rest' array.
function foo (...args) {
console.log(args) // returns an array when foo below is called [1,23,5]
console.log(arguments) // returns an object when foo below is called {"0":1,"1":23,"2":5}
}
foo(1,23,5)
The 'arguments' object is not available when arrow function is used.
You can use your own name instead of the built-in arguments, by using ... in the function definition and the call.
let worker = {
slow(min, max) {
alert(`Called with ${min},${max}`);
return min + max;
}
};
function cachingDecorator(func, hash) {
let cache = new Map();
return function(...myArgs) {
let key = hash(myArgs);
if (cache.has(key)) {
return cache.get(key);
}
let result = func.call(this, ...myArgs);
cache.set(key, result);
return result;
};
}
function hash(args) {
return args[0] + ',' + args[1];
}
worker.slow = cachingDecorator(worker.slow, hash);
alert(worker.slow(3, 5)); // works
alert("Again " + worker.slow(3, 5)); // same (cached)
For all non-arrow function there is a local variable arguments see here
Without arguments you can get the values by using rest parameters
return function(...myArgs) {
let key = hash(myArgs)
...
Or, if you are passing arguments to hash function after destructuring like
let key = hash(...arguments)
change your hash function as
function hash(hMin, hMax) {
return hMin + ',' + hMax;
}
I've been reading the chapter on functional inheritance in Crockford's 'The Good Parts'. In the mammal example he gives I'm a bit confused as to why he uses the superior method to modify the get_name function. Here is the example in question:
Function.prototype.method = function (name, func) {
this.prototype[name] = func;
return this;
};
var mammal = function (spec) {
var that = {};
that.get_name = function () {
return spec.name;
};
that.says = function () {
return spec.saying || '';
};
return that;
};
var myMammal = mammal({
name: 'Herb'
});
var cat = function (spec) {
spec.saying = spec.saying || 'meow';
var that = mammal(spec);
that.purr = function (n) {
var i, s = '';
for (i = 0; i < n; i += 1) {
if (s) {
s += '-';
}
s += 'r';
}
return s;
};
that.get_name = function () {
return that.says() + ' ' + spec.name + ' ' + that.says();
};
return that;
};
Object.method('superior', function (name) {
var that = this,
method = that[name];
return function () {
return method.apply(that, arguments);
};
});
var coolcat = function (spec) {
var that = cat(spec);
var super_get_name = that.superior('get_name');
that.get_name = function (n) {
return 'like ' + super_get_name() + ' baby';
};
return that;
};
var myCoolCat = coolcat({
name: 'Bix'
});
var name = myCoolCat.get_name(); // 'like meow Bix meow baby'
I'm confused about this because I can replicate the same thing by removing the superior method and just changing coolcat as follows:
var coolcat = function(spec) {
var that = cat(spec);
var super_get_name = that.get_name();
that.get_name = function(n) {
return 'like ' + super_get_name + ' baby';
};
return that;
};
So, I don't understand why Crockford chooses to use the superior method. Is anyone able to explain at all?
The idea here is that this:
var super_get_name = that.superior('get_name');
makes super_get_name into a function that — every time it is called — invokes that's original get_name method. This allows the new get_name to call the old (super-class) get_name.
Now, if the original get_name method will never have any effect other than to return a single value that never changes, then yeah, this is kind of pointless; you can just save that single-value-that-never-changes and then use it in the new get_name. But if the original get_name can actually do things (such as, say, run an AJAX request, or change the styling of an HTML element), or if its return-value can change (say, if there were some corresponding set_name method), then there would be an important difference between what your code does (save the original return-value and use it) and what Crockford's code does (save the original method and invoke it).
The confusion that arises from this chapter of Crockford's book arises as what Crockford describes is "his" preferred pattern for implementing inheritance in JavaScript, which relies on his extending the Function object with the Function.prototype.method (chapter 1.3) which he uses to add methods to the Function object.
The problem addressed in the coolcat example is the need to access the method of the parent type. In 'classical' OO languages like Java this is natural as classes exist in their own right. In JavaScript inheritance is prototypical, you make an object of type mammal and then modify the object to create the type cat or coolcat.
Depending on your design you may add properties and functions or override an 'inherited' function. The problem arises when you override an 'inherited' function, in JavaScript you basically replace the old function with the new function, thereby loosing the older function.
Crockford now needs to do two things:
get the parent's (cat's) get_name method; and
save it in a manner that can be used from within the overridden method.
In this code:
var coolcat = function(spec) {
var that = cat(spec),
super_get_name = that.superior('get_name');
that.get_name = function(n) {
return 'like ' + super_get_name() + ' baby';
};
return that;
};
He does 1. by calling the superior method to get a function that gets the cat's get_name function;
and he does 2. by saving it to the super_get_name variable within the coolcat function(/object) allowing access to the cat's get_name function before it is overridden (more correctly overwritten) by the coolcat's get_name function.
In my opinion the confusion arises because:
The superior method is named oddly: the 'superior' method is simply a function look up by name method and could be better named, for example as getFunctionByName (you can try this by replacing the string get_name, by purr, the coolcat's get_name will now call purr, just remember to call it as super_get_name(10) otherwise you'll get an empty string back).
Secondly the code and the pattern obfuscates the code by relying on some particular Crockford patterns, and is likely to stresses you out if you attempt to dive into this chapter without having followed the entire book.
I think there is a simpler way to achieve this, one that I think because it is completely localized is easier to understand etc., as in the code below:
var coolcat = function(spec) {
var that = cat(spec);
that.parent_get_name = that.get_name;
that.get_name = function() {
return 'like ' + this.parent_get_name() + ' baby';
};
return that;
};
There are some other oddities for example the argument n in definition of the coolcat get_name function, which I can only assume came from copying the purr function, which would suggest a ghost writer!
Finally, I would suggest that before one reads the book one should listen to his talk on 'JavaScript the good parts'. The talk is absolutely brilliant, much better than the book.
I've been experimenting with QUnit tests and was looking for a good method to override functions with mocks so as to enable more atomic tests. There are good solutions out there for specific cases, for example overriding $.ajax (Simple jQuery (1.5+) AJAX Mocking), but I was looking for a more general approach and came up with this:
// Constructor for overrides.
function overrides(overrides) {
this.overrides = overrides;
}
// Implementation for overrides.
overrides.prototype = {
set: function () {
var functions = {};
$.each(this.overrides, function (key, value) {
eval("functions['" + key + "'] = " + key + ";");
eval(key + " = value;");
});
this.functions = functions;
},
reset: function () {
var functions = this.functions;
$.each(this.overrides, function (key, _) {
eval(key + " = functions['" + key + "'];");
});
}
}
Which can then be used like:
module("Comments", {
setup: function () {
this.overrides = new overrides({ "$.ajax": function (url, options) {
alert("ajax: " + url + ', ' + options);
}
});
this.overrides.set();
},
teardown: function () {
this.overrides.reset();
}
});
Now, that all appears to work fine, and although this may not be the worst possible use of eval(), I was wondering if this could indeed be written without using eval()? I've read up on a bunch of the other eval() questions here and tried various options like accessing the overrides using window[] but that does not work for the $.ajax case for example (window['$'].ajax works but not window['$.ajax']).
Perhaps I'm also thinking to hard and eval() can be used safely here or there is a better approach in general for function overrides?
Why can't you just treat the objects as objects?
functions[key] = key;
var arr = key.split('.');
var obj = window;
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){
if (obj) obj = obj[arr[i]];
}
obj = value;
The only way as far as I know is providing the object and property name separately. This is also the case with native functions such as Object.defineProperty, which takes the object as one argument and the property name as a string as another argument.
// overwrite properties inside `$`
new overrides($, {"ajax": function (url, options) {
alert("ajax: " + url + ', ' + options);
}});
And something like this:
function overrides(obj, overrides) {
this.obj = obj;
this.overrides = overrides;
}
and:
set: function () {
var functions = {};
var inst = this;
$.each(this.overrides, function (key, value) {
functions[key] = inst.obj[key]; // old function
inst.obj[key] = value; // overwrite function
});
this.functions = functions;
},
It works because inst.obj and $ refer to the same object - changing properties on inst.obj modifies $ as well in this case.
I have an app that allows users to generate objects, and store them (in a MySQL table, as strings) for later use. The object could be :
function Obj() {
this.label = "new object";
}
Obj.prototype.setLabel = function(newLabel) {
this.label = newLabel;
}
If I use JSON.stringify on this object, I will only get the information on Obj.label (the stringified object would be a string like {label: "new object"}. If I store this string, and want to allow my user to retrieve the object later, the setLabel method will be lost.
So my question is: how can I re-instantiate the object, so that it keeps the properties stored thanks to JSON.stringify, but also gets back the different methods that should belong to its prototype. How would you do that ? I was thinking of something along "create a blank object" and "merge it with the stored one's properties", but I can't get it to work.
To do this, you'll want to use a "reviver" function when parsing the JSON string (and a "replacer" function or a toJSON function on your constructor's prototype when creating it). See Section 15.12.2 and 15.12.3 of the specification. If your environment doesn't yet support native JSON parsing, you can use one of Crockford's parsers (Crockford being the inventor of JSON), which also support "reviver" functions.
Here's a simple bespoke example that works with ES5-compliant browsers (or libraries that emulate ES5 behavior) (live copy, run in Chrome or Firefox or similar), but look after the example for a more generalized solution.
// Our constructor function
function Foo(val) {
this.value = val;
}
Foo.prototype.nifty = "I'm the nifty inherited property.";
Foo.prototype.toJSON = function() {
return "/Foo(" + this.value + ")/";
};
// An object with a property, `foo`, referencing an instance
// created by that constructor function, and another `bar`
// which is just a string
var obj = {
foo: new Foo(42),
bar: "I'm bar"
};
// Use it
display("obj.foo.value = " + obj.foo.value);
display("obj.foo.nifty = " + obj.foo.nifty);
display("obj.bar = " + obj.bar);
// Stringify it with a replacer:
var str = JSON.stringify(obj);
// Show that
display("The string: " + str);
// Re-create it with use of a "reviver" function
var obj2 = JSON.parse(str, function(key, value) {
if (typeof value === "string" &&
value.substring(0, 5) === "/Foo(" &&
value.substr(-2) == ")/"
) {
return new Foo(value.substring(5, value.length - 2));
}
return value;
});
// Use the result
display("obj2.foo.value = " + obj2.foo.value);
display("obj2.foo.nifty = " + obj2.foo.nifty);
display("obj2.bar = " + obj2.bar);
Note the toJSON on Foo.prototype, and the function we pass into JSON.parse.
The problem there, though, is that the reviver is tightly coupled to the Foo constructor. Instead, you can adopt a generic framework in your code, where any constructor function can support a fromJSON (or similar) function, and you can use just one generalized reviver.
Here's an example of a generalized reviver that looks for a ctor property and a data property, and calls ctor.fromJSON if found, passing in the full value it received (live example):
// A generic "smart reviver" function.
// Looks for object values with a `ctor` property and
// a `data` property. If it finds them, and finds a matching
// constructor that has a `fromJSON` property on it, it hands
// off to that `fromJSON` fuunction, passing in the value.
function Reviver(key, value) {
var ctor;
if (typeof value === "object" &&
typeof value.ctor === "string" &&
typeof value.data !== "undefined") {
ctor = Reviver.constructors[value.ctor] || window[value.ctor];
if (typeof ctor === "function" &&
typeof ctor.fromJSON === "function") {
return ctor.fromJSON(value);
}
}
return value;
}
Reviver.constructors = {}; // A list of constructors the smart reviver should know about
To avoid having to repeat common logic in toJSON and fromJSON functions, you could have generic versions:
// A generic "toJSON" function that creates the data expected
// by Reviver.
// `ctorName` The name of the constructor to use to revive it
// `obj` The object being serialized
// `keys` (Optional) Array of the properties to serialize,
// if not given then all of the objects "own" properties
// that don't have function values will be serialized.
// (Note: If you list a property in `keys`, it will be serialized
// regardless of whether it's an "own" property.)
// Returns: The structure (which will then be turned into a string
// as part of the JSON.stringify algorithm)
function Generic_toJSON(ctorName, obj, keys) {
var data, index, key;
if (!keys) {
keys = Object.keys(obj); // Only "own" properties are included
}
data = {};
for (index = 0; index < keys.length; ++index) {
key = keys[index];
data[key] = obj[key];
}
return {ctor: ctorName, data: data};
}
// A generic "fromJSON" function for use with Reviver: Just calls the
// constructor function with no arguments, then applies all of the
// key/value pairs from the raw data to the instance. Only useful for
// constructors that can be reasonably called without arguments!
// `ctor` The constructor to call
// `data` The data to apply
// Returns: The object
function Generic_fromJSON(ctor, data) {
var obj, name;
obj = new ctor();
for (name in data) {
obj[name] = data[name];
}
return obj;
}
The advantage here being that you defer to the implementation of a specific "type" (for lack of a better term) for how it serializes and deserializes. So you might have a "type" that just uses the generics:
// `Foo` is a constructor function that integrates with Reviver
// but doesn't need anything but the generic handling.
function Foo() {
}
Foo.prototype.nifty = "I'm the nifty inherited property.";
Foo.prototype.spiffy = "I'm the spiffy inherited property.";
Foo.prototype.toJSON = function() {
return Generic_toJSON("Foo", this);
};
Foo.fromJSON = function(value) {
return Generic_fromJSON(Foo, value.data);
};
Reviver.constructors.Foo = Foo;
...or one that, for whatever reason, has to do something more custom:
// `Bar` is a constructor function that integrates with Reviver
// but has its own custom JSON handling for whatever reason.
function Bar(value, count) {
this.value = value;
this.count = count;
}
Bar.prototype.nifty = "I'm the nifty inherited property.";
Bar.prototype.spiffy = "I'm the spiffy inherited property.";
Bar.prototype.toJSON = function() {
// Bar's custom handling *only* serializes the `value` property
// and the `spiffy` or `nifty` props if necessary.
var rv = {
ctor: "Bar",
data: {
value: this.value,
count: this.count
}
};
if (this.hasOwnProperty("nifty")) {
rv.data.nifty = this.nifty;
}
if (this.hasOwnProperty("spiffy")) {
rv.data.spiffy = this.spiffy;
}
return rv;
};
Bar.fromJSON = function(value) {
// Again custom handling, for whatever reason Bar doesn't
// want to serialize/deserialize properties it doesn't know
// about.
var d = value.data;
b = new Bar(d.value, d.count);
if (d.spiffy) {
b.spiffy = d.spiffy;
}
if (d.nifty) {
b.nifty = d.nifty;
}
return b;
};
Reviver.constructors.Bar = Bar;
And here's how we might test that Foo and Bar work as expected (live copy):
// An object with `foo` and `bar` properties:
var before = {
foo: new Foo(),
bar: new Bar("testing", 42)
};
before.foo.custom = "I'm a custom property";
before.foo.nifty = "Updated nifty";
before.bar.custom = "I'm a custom property"; // Won't get serialized!
before.bar.spiffy = "Updated spiffy";
// Use it
display("before.foo.nifty = " + before.foo.nifty);
display("before.foo.spiffy = " + before.foo.spiffy);
display("before.foo.custom = " + before.foo.custom + " (" + typeof before.foo.custom + ")");
display("before.bar.value = " + before.bar.value + " (" + typeof before.bar.value + ")");
display("before.bar.count = " + before.bar.count + " (" + typeof before.bar.count + ")");
display("before.bar.nifty = " + before.bar.nifty);
display("before.bar.spiffy = " + before.bar.spiffy);
display("before.bar.custom = " + before.bar.custom + " (" + typeof before.bar.custom + ")");
// Stringify it with a replacer:
var str = JSON.stringify(before);
// Show that
display("The string: " + str);
// Re-create it with use of a "reviver" function
var after = JSON.parse(str, Reviver);
// Use the result
display("after.foo.nifty = " + after.foo.nifty);
display("after.foo.spiffy = " + after.foo.spiffy);
display("after.foo.custom = " + after.foo.custom + " (" + typeof after.foo.custom + ")");
display("after.bar.value = " + after.bar.value + " (" + typeof after.bar.value + ")");
display("after.bar.count = " + after.bar.count + " (" + typeof after.bar.count + ")");
display("after.bar.nifty = " + after.bar.nifty);
display("after.bar.spiffy = " + after.bar.spiffy);
display("after.bar.custom = " + after.bar.custom + " (" + typeof after.bar.custom + ")");
display("(Note that after.bar.custom is undefined because <code>Bar</code> specifically leaves it out.)");
You can indeed create an empty instance and then merge the instance with the data. I recommend using a library function for ease of use (like jQuery.extend).
You had some errors though (function ... = function(...), and JSON requires keys to be surrounded by ").
http://jsfiddle.net/sc8NU/1/
var data = '{"label": "new object"}'; // JSON
var inst = new Obj; // empty instance
jQuery.extend(inst, JSON.parse(data)); // merge
Note that merging like this sets properties directly, so if setLabel is doing some checking stuff, this won't be done this way.
So far as I know, this means moving away from JSON; you're now customizing it, and so you take on all of the potential headaches that entails. The idea of JSON is to include data only, not code, to avoid all of the security problems that you get when you allow code to be included. Allowing code means that you have to use eval to run that code and eval is evil.
If you want to use the setters of Obj :
Obj.createFromJSON = function(json){
if(typeof json === "string") // if json is a string
json = JSON.parse(json); // we convert it to an object
var obj = new Obj(), setter; // we declare the object we will return
for(var key in json){ // for all properties
setter = "set"+key[0].toUpperCase()+key.substr(1); // we get the name of the setter for that property (e.g. : key=property => setter=setProperty
// following the OP's comment, we check if the setter exists :
if(setter in obj){
obj[setter](json[key]); // we call the setter
}
else{ // if not, we set it directly
obj[key] = json[key];
}
}
return obj; // we finally return the instance
};
This requires your class to have setters for all its properties.
This method is static, so you can use like this :
var instance = Obj.createFromJSON({"label":"MyLabel"});
var instance2 = Obj.createFromJSON('{"label":"MyLabel"}');
From ECMAScript 6 onwards you can just do:
Object.assign(new Obj(), JSON.parse(rawJsonString))
Note: You create a new empty object of the defined type first and then override its properties with the parsed JSON. Not the other way around.
The methods define behaviour and contain no variable data. They are "stored" as your code. So you don't actually have to store them in the database.
You would have to write your own stringify method that stores functions as properties by converting them to strings using the toString method.
JavaScript is prototype based programming language which is classless language where object orientation achieved by process of cloning existing objects that serve as prototypes.
Serializing JSON would be considering any methods, for instance if you have an object
var x = {
a: 4
getText: function() {
return x.a;
}
};
You will get just { a:4 } where getText method is skipped by the serializer.
I ran into this same trouble a year back and I had to maintain a separate helper class for each of my domain object and used $.extend() it to my deserialized object when need, just more like having methods to a base class for the domain objects.
Try to use toString on the method.
Update:
Iterate over the methods in obj and store them as string, and then instantiate them with new Function.
storedFunc = Obj.prototype.setLabel.toString();
Obj2.prototype['setLabel'] = new Function("return (" + storedFunc + ")")();
I have this:
this.f = function instance(){};
I would like to have this:
this.f = function ["instance:" + a](){};
This will basically do it at the most simple level:
"use strict";
var name = "foo";
var func = new Function(
"return function " + name + "(){ alert('sweet!')}"
)();
//call it, to test it
func();
If you want to get more fancy, I have a written an article on "Dynamic function names in JavaScript".
You can use Object.defineProperty as noted in the MDN JavaScript Reference:
var myName = "myName";
var f = function () { return true; };
Object.defineProperty(f, 'name', {value: myName, writable: false});
In recent engines, you can do
function nameFunction(name, body) {
return {[name](...args) {return body.apply(this, args)}}[name]
}
const x = nameFunction("wonderful function", (p) => p*2)
console.log(x(9)) // => 18
console.log(x.name) // => "wonderful function"
Thanks to T S for pointing out the need to preserve this in the comments.
Also, these days, I'd probably use the Object.defineProperty approach to achieve something similar.
Update 2021: CherryDT's answer should be the easiest most straight forward way now, but it doesn't work consistently with different browsers for stack traces or Function.prototype.toString(), so if you need that you're stuck with this less convenient solution.
Old answer: Many suggestions here are suboptimal, by using eval, hacky solutions or wrappers.
As of ES2015 names are inferred from the syntactic position for variables and properties.
So this will work just fine:
const name = 'myFn';
const fn = {[name]: function() {}}[name];
fn.name // 'myFn'
Resist the temptation to create named function factory methods as you wouldn't be able to pass the function from outside and retrofit it into the syntactic position to infer its name. Then it's already too late. If you really need that, you have to create a wrapper. Someone did that here, but that solution doesn't work for classes (which are also functions).
A much more in-depth answer with all the variants outlined has been written here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/9479081/633921
As others mentioned, this is not the fastest nor most recommended solution. Marcosc's solution below is the way to go.
You can use eval:
var code = "this.f = function " + instance + "() {...}";
eval(code);
What about
this.f = window["instance:" + a] = function(){};
The only drawback is that the function in its toSource method wouldn't indicate a name. That's usually only a problem for debuggers.
The syntax function[i](){} implies an object with property values that are functions, function[], indexed by the name, [i].
Thus
{"f:1":function(){}, "f:2":function(){}, "f:A":function(){}, ... } ["f:"+i].
{"f:1":function f1(){}, "f:2":function f2(){}, "f:A":function fA(){}} ["f:"+i] will preserve function name identification. See notes below regarding :.
So,
javascript: alert(
new function(a){
this.f={"instance:1":function(){}, "instance:A":function(){}} ["instance:"+a]
}("A") . toSource()
);
displays ({f:(function () {})}) in FireFox.
(This is almost the same idea as this solution, only it uses a generic object and no longer directly populates the window object with the functions.)
This method explicitly populates the environment with instance:x.
javascript: alert(
new function(a){
this.f=eval("instance:"+a+"="+function(){})
}("A") . toSource()
);
alert(eval("instance:A"));
displays
({f:(function () {})})
and
function () {
}
Though the property function f references an anonymous function and not instance:x, this method avoids several problems with this solution.
javascript: alert(
new function(a){
eval("this.f=function instance"+a+"(){}")
}("A") . toSource()
);
alert(instanceA); /* is undefined outside the object context */
displays only
({f:(function instanceA() {})})
The embedded : makes the javascript function instance:a(){} invalid.
Instead of a reference, the function's actual text definition is parsed and interpreted by eval.
The following is not necessarily problematic,
The instanceA function is not directly available for use as instanceA()
and so is much more consistent with the original problem context.
Given these considerations,
this.f = {"instance:1": function instance1(){},
"instance:2": function instance2(){},
"instance:A": function instanceA(){},
"instance:Z": function instanceZ(){}
} [ "instance:" + a ]
maintains the global computing environment with the semantics and syntax of the OP example as much as possible.
The most voted answer has got already defined [String] function body. I was looking for the solution to rename already declared function's name and finally after an hour of struggling I've dealt with it. It:
takes the alredy declared function
parses it to [String] with .toString() method
then overwrites the name (of named function) or appends the new one (when anonymous) between function and (
then creates the new renamed function with new Function() constructor
function nameAppender(name,fun){
const reg = /^(function)(?:\s*|\s+([A-Za-z0-9_$]+)\s*)(\()/;
return (new Function(`return ${fun.toString().replace(reg,`$1 ${name}$3`)}`))();
}
//WORK FOR ALREADY NAMED FUNCTIONS:
function hello(name){
console.log('hello ' + name);
}
//rename the 'hello' function
var greeting = nameAppender('Greeting', hello);
console.log(greeting); //function Greeting(name){...}
//WORK FOR ANONYMOUS FUNCTIONS:
//give the name for the anonymous function
var count = nameAppender('Count',function(x,y){
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.area = x*y;
});
console.log(count); //function Count(x,y){...}
For setting the name of an existing anonymous function:
(Based on #Marcosc's answer)
var anonymous = function() { return true; }
var name = 'someName';
var strFn = anonymous.toString().replace('function ', 'return function ' + name);
var fn = new Function(strFn)();
console.log(fn()); // —> true
Demo.
Note: Don't do it ;/
The function's name property by default isn't writeable, but since it's configurable we can still use Object.defineProperty to change it. Since Object.defineProperty conveniently returns the object itself, we can write a function with a dynamic name like this:
const theName = 'foobar'
const fn = Object.defineProperty(function () {
/* ... */
}, 'name', { value: theName })
console.log(fn.name) // Logs foobar
Of course this could be factored out into a helper function:
const nameFunction = (name, fn) => Object.defineProperty(fn, 'name', { value: name })
const fn = nameFunction('foobar', function () {
/* ... */
})
console.log(fn.name) // Logs foobar
The above nameFunction function can also be used to rename an existing function, of course (here it's just renaming and returning the anonymous one).
Dynamic methods of an object may be created using Object Literal Extensions provided by ECMAScript 2015 (ES6):
const postfixes = ['foo', 'bar'];
const mainObj = {};
const makeDynamic = (postfix) => {
const newMethodName = 'instance: ' + postfix;
const tempObj = {
[newMethodName]() {
console.log(`called method ${newMethodName}`);
}
}
Object.assign(mainObj, tempObj);
return mainObj[newMethodName]();
}
const processPostfixes = (postfixes) => {
for (const postfix of postfixes) {
makeDynamic(postfix);
}
};
processPostfixes(postfixes);
console.log(mainObj);
The output of running the code above is:
"called method instance: foo"
"called method instance: bar"
Object {
"instance: bar": [Function anonymous],
"instance: foo": [Function anonymous]
}
the best way it is create object with list of dynamic functions like:
const USER = 'user';
const userModule = {
[USER + 'Action'] : function () { ... },
[USER + 'OnClickHandler'] : function () { ... },
[USER + 'OnCreateHook'] : function () { ... },
}
There are two methods to achieve this, and they have their pros and cons.
name property definition
Defining immutable name property of a function.
Pros
Every character is available for the name. (eg. () 全 {}/1/얏호/ :D #GO(#*#%! /*)
Cons
The function's syntactic (“expressional”) name may not correspond with its name property value.
Function expression evaluation
Making a named function expression and evaluating it with Function constructor.
Pros
The function's syntactic (“expressional”) name always corresponds with its name property value.
Cons
Whitespaces (and etc.) are not available for the name.
Expression-injectable (eg. For input (){}/1//, the expression is return function (){}/1//() {}, gives NaN instead of a function.).
const demoeval = expr => (new Function(`return ${expr}`))();
// `name` property definition
const method1 = func_name => {
const anon_func = function() {};
Object.defineProperty(anon_func, "name", {value: func_name, writable: false});
return anon_func;
};
const test11 = method1("DEF_PROP"); // No whitespace
console.log("DEF_PROP?", test11.name); // "DEF_PROP"
console.log("DEF_PROP?", demoeval(test11.toString()).name); // ""
const test12 = method1("DEF PROP"); // Whitespace
console.log("DEF PROP?", test12.name); // "DEF PROP"
console.log("DEF PROP?", demoeval(test12.toString()).name); // ""
// Function expression evaluation
const method2 = func_name => demoeval(`function ${func_name}() {}`);
const test21 = method2("EVAL_EXPR"); // No whitespace
console.log("EVAL_EXPR?", test21.name); // "EVAL_EXPR"
console.log("EVAL_EXPR?", demoeval(test21.toString()).name); // "EVAL_EXPR"
const test22 = method2("EVAL EXPR"); // Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier
If you want to have a dynamic function like the __call function in PHP, you could use Proxies.
const target = {};
const handler = {
get: function (target, name) {
return (myArg) => {
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(() => resolve('some' + myArg), 600))
}
}
};
const proxy = new Proxy(target, handler);
(async function() {
const result = await proxy.foo('string')
console.log('result', result) // 'result somestring' after 600 ms
})()
You can use Dynamic Function Name and parameters like this.
1) Define function Separate and call it
let functionName = "testFunction";
let param = {"param1":1 , "param2":2};
var func = new Function(
"return " + functionName
)();
func(param);
function testFunction(params){
alert(params.param1);
}
2) Define function code dynamic
let functionName = "testFunction(params)";
let param = {"param1":"1" , "param2":"2"};
let functionBody = "{ alert(params.param1)}";
var func = new Function(
"return function " + functionName + functionBody
)();
func(param);
This utility function merge multiple functions into one (using a custom name), only requirement is that provided functions are properly "new lined" at start and end of its scoop.
const createFn = function(name, functions, strict=false) {
var cr = `\n`, a = [ 'return function ' + name + '(p) {' ];
for(var i=0, j=functions.length; i<j; i++) {
var str = functions[i].toString();
var s = str.indexOf(cr) + 1;
a.push(str.substr(s, str.lastIndexOf(cr) - s));
}
if(strict == true) {
a.unshift('\"use strict\";' + cr)
}
return new Function(a.join(cr) + cr + '}')();
}
// test
var a = function(p) {
console.log("this is from a");
}
var b = function(p) {
console.log("this is from b");
}
var c = function(p) {
console.log("p == " + p);
}
var abc = createFn('aGreatName', [a,b,c])
console.log(abc) // output: function aGreatName()
abc(123)
// output
this is from a
this is from b
p == 123
I had better luck in combining Darren's answer and kyernetikos's answer.
const nameFunction = function (fn, name) {
return Object.defineProperty(fn, 'name', {value: name, configurable: true});
};
/* __________________________________________________________________________ */
let myFunc = function oldName () {};
console.log(myFunc.name); // oldName
myFunc = nameFunction(myFunc, 'newName');
console.log(myFunc.name); // newName
Note: configurable is set to true to match the standard ES2015 spec for Function.name1
This especially helped in getting around an error in Webpack similar to this one.
Update: I was thinking of publishing this as an npm package, but this package from sindresorhus does exactly the same thing.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/name
I struggled a lot with this issue. #Albin solution worked like a charm while developing, but it did not work when I changed it to production. After some debugging I realized how to achieve what I needed. I'm using ES6 with CRA (create-react-app), which means it's bundled by Webpack.
Lets say you have a file that exports the functions you need:
myFunctions.js
export function setItem(params) {
// ...
}
export function setUser(params) {
// ...
}
export function setPost(params) {
// ...
}
export function setReply(params) {
// ...
}
And you need to dynamically call these functions elsewhere:
myApiCalls.js
import * as myFunctions from 'path_to/myFunctions';
/* note that myFunctions is imported as an array,
* which means its elements can be easily accessed
* using an index. You can console.log(myFunctions).
*/
function accessMyFunctions(res) {
// lets say it receives an API response
if (res.status === 200 && res.data) {
const { data } = res;
// I want to read all properties in data object and
// call a function based on properties names.
for (const key in data) {
if (data.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
// you can skip some properties that are usually embedded in
// a normal response
if (key !== 'success' && key !== 'msg') {
// I'm using a function to capitalize the key, which is
// used to dynamically create the function's name I need.
// Note that it does not create the function, it's just a
// way to access the desired index on myFunctions array.
const name = `set${capitalizeFirstLetter(key)}`;
// surround it with try/catch, otherwise all unexpected properties in
// data object will break your code.
try {
// finally, use it.
myFunctions[name](data[key]);
} catch (error) {
console.log(name, 'does not exist');
console.log(error);
}
}
}
}
}
}
Node.js JavaScript Class Based Dynamic Function Name
File: Schema.js
class Schema {
constructor() {
this.name = null;
}
virtual(name = null) {
this.name = name;
return this;
}
get(func = false) {
if (!this.name || !func instanceof Function) {
throw new Error("Name and function must be provided.");
}
// Attach the dynamic function name to the "this" Object
this[this.name] = func;
this.name = null;
}
}
module.exports = Schema;
File: index.js
const Schema = require("./Schema.js");
const User = new Schema();
User.virtual("getPostCount").get(() => {
return 10 + 10;
});
const ok = User.getPostCount();
console.log({ User });
console.log(ok);
Thank you Marcosc! Building on his answer, if you want to rename any function, use this:
// returns the function named with the passed name
function namedFunction(name, fn) {
return new Function('fn',
"return function " + name + "(){ return fn.apply(this,arguments)}"
)(fn)
}
function myFunction() {
console.log('It works!');
}
var name = 'myFunction';
window[name].call();
You was near:
this["instance_" + a] = function () {...};
{...};
I might be missing the obvious here, but what's wrong with just adding the name? functions are invoked regardless of their name. names are just used for scoping reasons. if you assign it to a variable, and it's in scope, it can be called. hat happens is your are executing a variable which happens to be a function. if you must have a name for identification reasons when debugging, insert it between the keyword function and the opening brace.
var namedFunction = function namedFunction (a,b) {return a+b};
alert(namedFunction(1,2));
alert(namedFunction.name);
alert(namedFunction.toString());
an alternative approach is to wrap the function in an outer renamed shim, which you can also pass into an outer wrapper, if you don't want to dirty the surrounding namespace. if you are wanting to actually dynamically create the function from strings (which most of these examples do), it's trivial to rename the source to do what you want. if however you want to rename existing functions without affecting their functionality when called elsewhere, a shim is the only way to achieve it.
(function(renamedFunction) {
alert(renamedFunction(1,2));
alert(renamedFunction.name);
alert(renamedFunction.toString());
alert(renamedFunction.apply(this,[1,2]));
})(function renamedFunction(){return namedFunction.apply(this,arguments);});
function namedFunction(a,b){return a+b};
This is BEST solution, better then new Function('return function name(){}')().
Eval is fastest solution:
var name = 'FuncName'
var func = eval("(function " + name + "(){})")