I'd like to know if it is posible, having one or more variables to pass them into a function and get those variables modified. I think it is posible with objects, as they behave as references, but I don't know.
With 1 var you could do:
var something = increase(something);
but what if you have, for example, 2 variables with recipies, and would like to exchange them?
exchange_recipies(book1, book2);
You could do this but the variables are parameters inside the function... So is there another way that I'm missing?
EDIT: I know it can be done in many ways but I'll state some here that I don't like due to obvious limitations:
-Use global variables.
-Use objects
-Return an array and reasign.
EDIT2: this Is it possible to change the value of the function parameter? helped me, but I think that answer is uncomplet and there are ways of doing this.
If the variables are declared globally then you wouldn't need to pass them into the function since they can be addressed inside the function.
var something = 1
function bar(){
something = increase(something);
}
For example.
This means you avoid changing the variables into parameters and can then address them from any function (dependant on nesting, ergo, if the variable is declared inside a function it can't be addressed outside of that function but can from a function inside)
function foo(){
var something = 1
function bar(){
//works because it exists in the parent function
something = increase(something)
}
}
function foobar()
//Something doesn't exist here so would return something = undefined
something = increase(something)
}
One way to do this is pass these two parameters as objects:
exchange_recipies({ obj: book1 }, { obj: book2 });
and then inside finction you can operate on obj properties
function exchange_recipies(book1, book2)
{
book1.obj = book2.obj;
...
}
http://codepen.io/anon/pen/eNRZZb
Related
This may be very simple but i lost my way in finding the answer,
I have a named function inside a Backbone view. I'm trying to write unit test for this named function and i could see a variable is being declared in function scope. The state of this variable changes based on certain scenarios.
I have instantiated the view object inside my test suite and when i do a console.log(viewObject.namedFunction) i see the entire function being logged properly. Now how do i access the variable inside the namedFunction, i was expecting something like viewObject.namedFunction.variableName but it will not work and when i did that, it was not working as expected.
If the variable is tied to viewObject scope then it would have been easy to access it. But in this scenario it is not so can some one please help me in getting a hold on the variable inside named function in view object from test suite.
I think I understand your confusion, because when you define a variable using var in the window scope, it becomes a property on the window object... It would seem to follow that when you define a variable in a child scope, it should become a member of the local context, right? Nope. Globals are special ;-)
In fact, if that were the case, there would be no privacy!
If you want sign to be public, be explicit.
obj = {
namedFunction : function myself() {
console.log(myself);
myself.sign = 23;
}
};
obj.namedFunction.sign;
The only problem with this approach is that you can now assign a new value to sign from anywhere. The classic and preferred approach to this problem is to create a getter function for your private variable.
var obj = {
namedFunction : function myself() {
var sign = 3;
myself.getSign = function(){return sign;};
}
};
obj.namedFunction.getSign();
This isn't by any means the only approach, but I hope it was helpful.
One way to do this is like such:
namedFunction = (function(){
var theActualFunction = function(){
//Do something
//Access variable like: theActualFunction.MyVariable
};
theActualFunction.MyVariable = "value";
return theActualFunction;
}());
I know I can define properties on functions, which can then be accessed from within the function. Right now, the only syntax I can work out involves two statements. Is there a more concise way to express the following:
function myFunc() {
// do some work
}
myFunc.myProp = 0;
I'm not looking for a solution that is fewer characters -- this isn't code golf. I'm asking something more along the lines of "are there different patterns of function declaration that have this other desirable merit?" This is almost about ways to use closures (because I suspect the answer lies there).
Thanks!
Especially if you want to access properties of the function from inside the function itself, you're better off doing this:
var theFunction = function() {
function theRealFunction() {
// the code
if (theRealFunction.something == "not whatever")
// do something
// more code
}
theRealFunction.something = "whatever";
return theRealFunction;
}();
What that does is wrap your function declaration up in an anonymous function. The problem with accessing function properties via the function name is that it must do that by finding the function's name in the surrounding scope. That's kind-of icky, but at least this way it involves a scope that's essentially private. It'll work whether or not the resulting function (returned as the return value of the anonymous function) is assigned to a different variable, passed to a function as a handler function, etc.
This really, really all depends. If you're looking for private variables, then you can easily return a function from the function -- an inner-function will contain access to its parent's scope.
var outer_function = (function () {
var private_var = "secret",
public_var = "public",
inner_function = function () {
return private_var;
};
inner_function.public_var = public_var;
return inner_function;
}());
outer_function now equals inner_function, with the benefit of having access to the enclosed data. Any properties attached to the inner (in the way you did) will now be accessible as public properties of outer.
To this end, you can return, say, a constructor for a class, with public-static properties, with the enclosed vars acting as private-static properties, shared between every instance of the "class" you build.
Not exactly the answer to your question, but if you ever want to read up some different design patterns that can be used when defining a javascript function, this is one of the best articles I've ever read on the topic:
http://www.klauskomenda.com/code/javascript-programming-patterns/
I have the following javascript method:
function 123_test_function(){
}
The function is generated by java and sent to the client. The 123 is the id of the component so it could change. i.e I can have another function called 111_test_function()
I want to pass this function as a reference.
So I need to create the reference
var 123_test_function = function 123_test_function(){
}
In another js file inside an object I have a function that needs to use the 123_test_function reference like so:
useFunction(123_test_function);
The problem I'm having is which the 123 part of the function.
In this object I have a variable(uniqueID) which has the number at the beginning of the function.
I need the function call to be something like:
useFunction(uniqueID+"_test_function");
This doesn't seem to pass a function instead it passes a string.
Am I doing something wrong?
For one, identifiers (such as function names) cannot begin with a digit.
To solve your problem, use an object, like this:
// 1. define an object to hold all your functions
var allFunctions = {};
// 2. store any function with a unique string as the ID
allFunctions['123_test_function'] = function () {
// whatever
};
// 3. call the function
allFunctions['123_test_function']();
allFunctions[uniqueID + '_test_function']();
Objects are associative arrays. They store key/values pairs, so they do exactly what you want here.
Note that functions don't need a name in JavaScript, so I did not use on in step 2.
If the function is defined as global one, it will be a member of global object (window in case of browsers). Hence you can just do window['id_'+uniqueID+'_test_function'] to access your function
useFunction(window['id_'+uniqueID+'_test_function'])
(Identifiers cannot begin with numbers in JavaScript so I added the 'id_' prefix. You can of course change it to your liking.)
function test_function(number){
if(number == 1)
{
return function() {}
}
if(number == 2)
{
return function() {}
}
}
call the function like this
var func = test_function(1)
func();
As a couple of people have correctly pointed out, a function (or indeed variable) name cannot begin with a numeric. Also this syntax is wrong:
var 123_test_function = function 123_test_function(){
}
The correct syntax would be:
var 123_test_function = function() {
};
...although it should also be noted that the effect of this is exactly the same as a "traditional"
function 123_test_function() {
}
...declaration, in the context of the window object - since window is effectively the global scope of a JS environment in a browser, it doesn't matter how you define the functions, they will always be accessible from anywhere. Understanding exactly what each method of declaring a function means in Javascript is important - luckily, Douglas Crockford to the rescue once again...
People have suggested various methods for calling your named functions from the context of a string, which is basically attempting to use "variable variable" syntax, a subject that has been discussed on SO and elsewhere at length. The eval() approach should be avoided wherever possible - if you find yourself needing an eval() chances are you went wrong somewhere a while back. #Tomalak has the right idea with a collection of functions held in an object, but this still needs the slightly messy string approach to reference things that are actually being accessed by a numeric ID. The collection approach has the advantage of not cluttering up the window object with what are likely to be single/zero use members.
But the way I see it, all you actually need here is an indexed array of functions, where all you need is the numeric index in order to access them. I suggest you create your functions like this:
// Do this once at the top of your JS
var test_functions = [];
// Now, for each function you define:
test_functions[123] = function() {
// Do stuff here
};
// And when you need to call the functions:
var funcId = 123;
test_functions[funcId]();
I have tried to figure this out or search for it on google, i can only find how to create objects, not exactly how functions work. If someone could explain to me how encapsulation works.
function myObject() {
this.variable1 = "tst";
this.function1 = function() {
//Now this function works. A 'this' function to a private function is ok
_PrivateFunction1();
//Here is error one, I cannot seem to call methods within the object
//from.
this.function2();
}
this.function2 = function() {
alert("look! function2!");
}
function _PrivateFunction1() {
//This does work though. I am confused.
_PrivateFunction2();
}
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(this.variable1);
}
}
I think I can explain this better if we go in reverse order. First, we define some functions:
function _PrivateFunction1() {
//This does work though. I am confused.
_PrivateFunction2();
}
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(this.variable1);
}
This is pretty normal stuff. The only thing that's weird is that they appear inside another function, but that's perfectly fine. JavaScript has function scope, which means that all variables defined inside a function are defined in a new scope. They do not trample on the global namespace. And functions are first-class objects in JavaScript, which means they can be used just like other data types. They can be nested, passed to functions, returned from functions, etc.
Then we run into some trouble:
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(this.variable1);
}
}
Functions in JavaScript are always executed in some context which is referred to by the this keyword. When you call a function directly (i.e. like this: functionName()) the context in which that function executes is the global window object. So, inside _PrivateFunction2, this.variable1 is equivalent to window.variable1 which is probably not what you meant.
You probably wanted to refer to the current instance of myobject which is what this refers to outside of _PrivateFunction2. You can preserve access to this in an inner scope by storing a reference to it in another variable:
var _this = this;
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(_this.variable1);
}
There's something subtle here you should notice. _PrivateFunction2 has access to the variables defined in its lexical scope, which is why it can access _this. This will be important later.
Next up:
function _PrivateFunction1() {
//This does work though. I am confused.
_PrivateFunction2();
}
This should be the most normal-looking section to you, I would think. There's nothing strange going on here. Just one regular function calling another one. Don't be confused by the fact that these are nested inside myObject. That changes the scope they're in, but not much else.
Next we define some instance variables and methods:
this.variable1 = "tst";
this.function1 = function() {
//Now this function works. A 'this' function to a private function is ok
_PrivateFunction1();
//Here is error one, I cannot seem to call methods within the object
//from.
this.function2();
}
this.function2 = function() {
alert("look! function2!");
}
Here this really does refer to myObject, assuming -- and it's an important assumption -- that myObject was called with the new operator, like this:
var obj = new myObject();
If it had been called like this:
var obj = myObject();
Then this would refer to the window object, just like it did for the functions we saw earlier. The key takeaway is that the value of this is not fixed. It's determined by the way in which the function is called. There are even ways to set it to an arbitrary object explicitly.
The value of this inside this.function1 will also be the current instance of myObject, because it will most likely be used like this:
var obj = new myObject();
obj.function1();
Writing object.method() sets this to object inside method.
So how is this.function1 able to call _PrivateFunction1()? Just as we saw earlier when saving the value of this for use inside a nested function, _PrivateFunction1() is just another object defined in this.function1's lexical scope, so it is available for its use, just as _this was earlier.
And it's because of closure that these private variables are still alive long after myObject has returned.
Footnote: Because failing to use new when instantiating objects breaks things so spectacularly without warning, it's considered good practice to capitalize the names of functions you intend to be used as a constructor. So myObject should really be MyObject.
You have to save a copy of the actual object like here note the var that = this
Tested in chrome and FF
for encapsulation I would prefer module pattern like
var someMethod = function(){
var i,
length,
// public method
public = function(num1, num2){
return num1+num2;
},
//private method
_private = function(){};
//exposing the public method
return{
public:public
}
};
var callPublic = someMethod();
callPublic.public(20, 30);// call the public method and return 50
now , if you try to call that private method like
callPublic._private();//it will return not a function since its not been exposed
There are lot of other pattern to encapsulate your methods but module pattern is most common. Hope ot will help you how to encapsulate data in javascript.
I've heard from a variety of places that global variables are inherently nasty and evil, but when doing some non-object oriented Javascript, I can't see how to avoid them. Say I have a function which generates a number using a complex algorithm using random numbers and stuff, but I need to keep using that particular number in some other function which is a callback or something and so can't be part of the same function.
If the originally generated number is a local variable, it won't be accessible from, there. If the functions were object methods, I could make the number a property but they're not and it seems somewhat overcomplicated to change the whole program structure to do this. Is a global variable really so bad?
I think your best bet here may be to define a single global-scoped variable, and dumping your variables there:
var MyApp = {}; // Globally scoped object
function foo(){
MyApp.color = 'green';
}
function bar(){
alert(MyApp.color); // Alerts 'green'
}
No one should yell at you for doing something like the above.
To make a variable calculated in function A visible in function B, you have three choices:
make it a global,
make it an object property, or
pass it as a parameter when calling B from A.
If your program is fairly small then globals are not so bad. Otherwise I would consider using the third method:
function A()
{
var rand_num = calculate_random_number();
B(rand_num);
}
function B(r)
{
use_rand_num(r);
}
Consider using namespaces:
(function() {
var local_var = 'foo';
global_var = 'bar'; // this.global_var and window.global_var also work
function local_function() {}
global_function = function() {};
})();
Both local_function and global_function have access to all local and global variables.
Edit: Another common pattern:
var ns = (function() {
// local stuff
function foo() {}
function bar() {}
function baz() {} // this one stays invisible
// stuff visible in namespace object
return {
foo : foo,
bar : bar
};
})();
The returned properties can now be accessed via the namespace object, e.g. ns.foo, while still retaining access to local definitions.
What you're looking for is technically known as currying.
function getMyCallback(randomValue)
{
return function(otherParam)
{
return randomValue * otherParam //or whatever it is you are doing.
}
}
var myCallback = getMyCallBack(getRand())
alert(myCallBack(1));
alert(myCallBack(2));
The above isn't exactly a curried function but it achieves the result of maintaining an existing value without adding variables to the global namespace or requiring some other object repository for it.
I found this to be extremely helpful in relation to the original question:
Return the value you wish to use in functionOne, then call functionOne within functionTwo, then place the result into a fresh var and reference this new var within functionTwo. This should enable you to use the var declared in functionOne, within functionTwo.
function functionOne() {
var variableThree = 3;
return variableThree;
}
function functionTwo() {
var variableOne = 1;
var var3 = functionOne();
var result = var3 - variableOne;
console.log(variableOne);
console.log(var3);
console.log('functional result: ' + result);
}
functionTwo();
If another function needs to use a variable you pass it to the function as an argument.
Also global variables are not inherently nasty and evil. As long as they are used properly there is no problem with them.
If there's a chance that you will reuse this code, then I would probably make the effort to go with an object-oriented perspective. Using the global namespace can be dangerous -- you run the risk of hard to find bugs due to variable names that get reused. Typically I start by using an object-oriented approach for anything more than a simple callback so that I don't have to do the re-write thing. Any time that you have a group of related functions in javascript, I think, it's a candidate for an object-oriented approach.
Another approach is one that I picked up from a Douglas Crockford forum post(http://bytes.com/topic/javascript/answers/512361-array-objects). Here it is...
Douglas Crockford wrote:
Jul 15 '06
"If you want to retrieve objects by id, then you should use an object, not an
array. Since functions are also objects, you could store the members in the
function itself."
function objFacility(id, name, adr, city, state, zip) {
return objFacility[id] = {
id: id,
name: name,
adr: adr,
city: city,
state: state,
zip: zip
}
}
objFacility('wlevine', 'Levine', '23 Skid Row', 'Springfield', 'Il', 10010);
"The object can be obtained with"
objFacility.wlevine
The objects properties are now accessable from within any other function.
I don't know specifics of your issue, but if the function needs the value then it can be a parameter passed through the call.
Globals are considered bad because globals state and multiple modifiers can create hard to follow code and strange errors. To many actors fiddling with something can create chaos.
You can completely control the execution of javascript functions (and pass variables between them) using custom jQuery events....I was told that this wasn't possible all over these forums, but I got something working that does exactly that (even using an ajax call).
Here's the answer (IMPORTANT: it's not the checked answer but rather the answer by me "Emile"):
How to get a variable returned across multiple functions - Javascript/jQuery