We Keep Coding

Determine function has defined as a expression or declaried as function

I want to know how the function has been initialized, with the expression or declaried as fuction. _ Amazon interview question
expression : var a = function (){ }
declaration: function a (){ }

You could just do a.toString() and parse out the name. Or do the same with regular expressions
a.toString().test(/^\s*function\s*\(/);
function a(){ }; // gives false
var a = function (){ }; // gives true
Of course as Grundy pointed out this fails with named functions. Something like
var a = function b() {};
or
function b() {};
var a = b;
And ES6 has .name (see the Browser table at the bottom for the current state of affairs) - https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/name

I don't think it's possible to do so. The only difference between:
var func = function(){ };
and:
function func() { };
Is that the first one gets assigned on runtime. The way I see it, is that both function statements return a reference to their respective function objects. In that sense they are both the same. The only thing you could argue is that one is not named and the other one is, but you could have assigned a named function to a variable too.
However, there seems to be a difference on how they get assigned. The second one seems to get assigned to a variable that its named after, right at the start of the execution context. The first one has to wait for the explicit assignment within the execution context.
So you'd be testing for when they get assigned. You might think that's is possible to do so within the global object like:
//some protected vars that can't work without same-origin
var protected = ['caches', 'localStorage', 'sessionStorage', 'frameElement'];
var definedAtInit = [];
for(prop in window){
if(!isSandboxed(prop) && typeof window[prop] === 'function'){
definedAtInit.push(prop);
}
};
function isSandboxed(prop){
return protected.indexOf(prop) !== -1;
}
function isItDefinedAtInit(funcName){
return definedAtInit.indexOf(funcName) !== -1;
}
var func = function() {
console.log('test');
}
var results = { isItDefinedAtInit : isItDefinedAtInit('isItDefinedAtInit'),
func : isItDefinedAtInit('func')
};
document.getElementById('results').innerHTML = JSON.stringify(results, '/t');
<pre id="results"></pre>
However, you could still do something like:
var isItDefinedAtInit = function() { };
//After this, isItDefinedAtInit('isItDefinedAtInit') would be wrong.
And you still have the problems with other execution contexts, I don't think functions declared within a function execution context get attached to any object.
I think these kind of checks are a bad idea to be honest.

There is only way, we can determine function has defined with function declarations not as expression.
as Grundy mentioned name property of the respective function gives require information, if it has been defined with expression name property holds undefined value, else it holds function name.
Here is the code :
var isDefinedAsFunction = function(fn){
return fn.name !== undefined
}

Javascript, getting away from 'this' and using local scope

In a typical js class, all calls to member functions must be preceded by this. I was looking at a technique that would let me create a library of inter-dependent STATIC functions and relying on closure/scope to make things a bit easier.
Example:
var Singleton={
//main entry point
// call with fn name, args...
call:function(){
var args=[];
if (arguments.length==0) {
return;
}
// get the fn name
var fn=arguments[0];
var x;
// make args array
for (x=1;x<arguments.length;x++) {
args[args.length]=arguments[x];
}
// I want to get rid of this part
// See below for what I wish
// Here I have access to fns below due to hoisting in js
// so I put them in a map...
var fns={
test:test
// etc, more like this I do not want to type/maintain
}
// ... all so I can do this
// get my function.
var fun=fns[fn];
// instead of that, I would like to "override whitespace" and
// say something like:
// var fun=['fn_name'];
// so I can index into local scope and get a fn
//
// log error if not found
if (typeof fun=='undefined') {
loge('Singleton: function not found:'+fn);
return;
}
// ok, run the function
return fun.apply(window,args);
// the test fn accesses test2() without dot notation
function test(a){
// Note: here in test fn it can access test2()
// without using this.test2() syntax
// as you would in normal objects
var s=test2();
alert(s+' test:'+a);
};
function test2(){
return 'test2';
};
}
}
I was hoping someone more familiar with advances in javascript might have advice on how to emulate an "implied but unnecessary this", it always struck me as strange that this defaults to window, and wouldn't it be nice if this could be pointed to an anonymous object with the local scope attached.
I would love to say ['localObject'] to get something in scope.
Edit:
After seeing some of the responses, I will restate this in the form of a challenge:
What I am looking for is a syntax cheat, a way to, as #Varuna put it, "1. Access static methods without using this variable i.e. they will remain global to one another. 2. Do not want to maintain a local array for static methods and want to achieve with in the local scope itself."
Put differently, I need to have the declared functions Register themselves, but I don't want to state the function name more than once. I suppose #Varuna has a solution using eval to access the local scope.
The following approach wont work:
var o={};
o['fn']=function fn(){};
o['fn2']=function fn2(){};
...because you have to state the fn name twice, but closure is preserved.
And this:
var a=[
function fn(){}
,function fn2(){}
];
Register(a);
Will not work because, AFAIK, you lose closure, ie. fn2 cannot see fn. Which also makes the following declarative style a "this nightmare":
window.MINE={
fn:function fn(){
//this?
// want to say fn2(), not this.fn2(), nor MINE.fn2()
}
,fn2:function fn2(){
//this?
}
,deeper:{
//more
}
};
But something like this might work, if you created a weird property that does the registration on assignment:
var registar=new Registar();
registar.reg=function fn(){};
registar.reg=function fn2(){};
//then access
var fn=registar.getFn(n);
// or
var fn=registar._[n];
The above relies on js properties and having access to fn.name, which is not available in all cases AFAIK.

If I understand correctly, you want to create objects that:
have static members
... which can be accessed without using the this notation
The easiest solution (assuming I've properly understood your query), would be to simply use a closure to store your stratic fields, access them directly by name, then explicitly add them as object members.
Consider:
var myConstructor = (function(){
var foo = 'someStaticField';
var bar = function(){
alert('A static method returns ' + foo);
};
return function(){
return {
foo : foo,
bar : bar
};
};
})();
var myInstance = new myConstructor();

As per my understanding, you want to:
1. Access static methods without using this variable i.e. they will remain global to one another.
2. Do not want to maintain a local array for static methods and want to achieve with in the local scope itself.
You can check whether a method exist using eval.Check Here
Only drawback is that this will be using eval method.
Code will be:
var Singleton = {
//main entry point
// call with fn name, args...
call: function () {
var args = [];
if (arguments.length == 0) {
return;
}
// get the fn name
var fn = arguments[0];
var x;
// make args array
for (x = 1; x < arguments.length; x++) {
args[args.length] = arguments[x];
}
//check whether function exist in local scope and not in global scope
if (typeof eval(fn) !== 'undefined' && typeof window[fn] === 'undefined') {
// ok, run the function
return eval(fn).apply(window, args);
}
else{
// log error if not found
loge('Singleton: function not found:' + fn);
return;
}
// the test fn accesses test2() without dot notation
function test(a) {
// Note: here in test fn it can access test2()
// without using this.test2() syntax
// as you would in normal objects
var s = test2();
alert(s + ' test:' + a);
};
function test2() {
return 'test2';
};
}
}

How about declaring functions that can access each other in separate closure, and exporting them to main method by binding your call method to an object containing the functions? Something like previous post (modified slightly):
var Singleton = {
call: (function() {
// here 'call' is bound to object containig your test functions
// this: {test, test2}
if (0 == arguments.length) return;
// log error if not found
if ('function' != typeof this[arguments[0]]) {
console.warn('Singleton: function not found:' + arguments[0]);
return;
}
// '...index into local scope and get function
// ie. get the function by it's name
return this[arguments[0]].
apply(window, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
// --- or:
// you can explicitly introduce function names to current scope,
// by `eval`-ing them here (not very much preferred way in JavaScript world):
for (var fname in this)
if (this.hasOwnProperty(fname))
eval('var ' + fname + ' = ' + this[fname]);
// and you can reference them directly by using their names
var fn = eval(arguments[0]);
return fn.apply(window, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
}).bind(
(function() {
var _exports = {};
function test (a) {
var s = test2();
alert(s + ' test: ' + a);
}
function test2 () {
return 'test2';
}
_exports['test'] = test;
_exports['test2'] = test2;
return _exports;
})()
)};
Singleton.call('test', 'foo and stuff');
//
previous post:
You are talking about Function#bind functionality that enables 'customizing' function's context. .bind() your call method to required 'local context' like this:
var Singleton = {
//main entry point
// call with fn name, args...
call: (function() {
// here `this` (context) is object bound to `call` method
// not `global` object, which is default for 'unbound' functions
var locals = this; // {fns, shift, loge, isfunc}
var fn;
var fun;
var x;
if (arguments.length == 0)
return;
// get the fn name
fn = locals.shift(arguments);
// '...index into local scope and get a fn'
fun = locals.fns[fn];
// log error if not found
if (!locals.isfunc(fun)) {
locals.loge('Singleton: function not found:' + fn);
return;
}
// ok, run the function
return fun.apply(window, arguments);
// lock `call`'s context to provided object
// and use `this` to reference it inside `call`
}).bind({
fns: (function(_) {
// and you can '...create a library of inter-dependent STATIC functions'
// in this closure and invoke them in `call` method above
_.test = function (a) {
var s = _.test2();
alert(s + ' test: ' + a);
};
_.test2 = function() {
return 'test2';
};
return _;
})({}),
// and create couple of helper methods as well...
isfunc: (function(_getclass) {
_getclass.func = _getclass(_getclass);
return ('function' !== typeof(/foo/)) ?
function(node) {
return 'function' == typeof node;
} :
function(node) {
return _getclass.func === _getclass(node);
};
})(Function.prototype.call.bind(Object.prototype.toString)),
loge: console.warn,
shift: Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.shift)
}),
};
Singleton.call('test', 'foo and stuff');
// eof

Here's one 'in your face answer', because I really don't like what I see here.
I don't see why you need this kind of construct, you already have that as part of language core.
1. dynamic lookup
you are doing it in a rather 'unprecedented' kind of way,
hashes already do that for you, and it's lightning fast to do a hash search.
If you are eval()-ing random strings to do simple name lookup you really have to
step aside from a keybord for a while... (no offense please)
2. closures
you are saying about 'using closures' which you actualy don't use.
your call function redeclares test functions each time it gets called,
and looks the ('fresh version') functions in it's own variable scope table,
instead of lookig them up in parent scope chains (aka. closures)
outside it's lexical location
3. nfe vs. nfd
ie. named function expressions vs. named function declarations
...you cannot assign a function to a local var and have it retain closure.
It is a feature, you might not be aware of how it works (it tripped me up as well).
check this article out for clarification
4. exceptions
Singleton: function name not found... x4!
Just go ahead and call a function,
interpreter will throw for you anyway if it cannot find/execute
5. eval (aka. ^^)
Singleton.call.ctx.fun = eval(Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
eval takes any string here(#!), and gladly executes ones like:
'for(;;);', or 'while(1);'... forever.
You probably don't want to have any code running unless it was your stuff.
6. arguments handling
It is considered best practice out there to use single (Object) options parameter
to 'fine tune' any significant piece of bundled functionality,
instead of trying to figure that out by type checking provided argument list
Here's, in couple of simple lines, what I (and as I can see #Jimmy Breck-McKye) suggest you should do:
var Singleton.call = (function () {
var funcmap = {
'f_1': function () {},
// etc.
'f_N': function () {},
};
return function (options) {
// options members:
// context, (Object) context, (defaults to global if none is given)
// func, (String) function_name,
// args, (Array) arguments to pass into a function
// this line does everything your 100+ lines long snippet was trying to:
// look's up parent scope for a function, tries to run it
// passing provided data, throws if it gets stuck.
return funcmap[options.func].apply(options.context, options.args);
};
})();
//

Answering my own question here.
The core of the issue is that you cannot assign a function to a local var and have it retain closure.
Consider that when writing a function with global and window scope, this is not necessary to call another function with identical scope. Such is not the case with member functions.
Another way of saying this is that there is no space where your cursor can sit and as you declare a function it automatically gets attached to the current this.
function fn(){}// if we are in global scope, then window.fn becomes defined
// but if we are inside, say, a constructor, simple declaration will not attach
// it to this, but fn is available in scope.
Any assignment on function declaration BREAKS part of the expected closure:
var IdentifierAvailableToClosure=function Unavailable(){}
But assignment after declaration works:
function NowAvailable(){}
var SynonymAvailableToo=NowAvailable;
This is what I meant by not wanting to repeat the name twice to get the mechanism to work.
This fact made me abandon other methods and rely on eval as suggested. Here is a first draft:
// This object is an encapsulation mechanism for a group of
// inter-dependent, static-ish, functions that can call each other
// without a this pointer prefix.
// Calls take the form of:
// Singleton.call(functionName:String [,arg1]...)
// or
// Singleton.call(contextObject:Object, functionName:String [,arg1]...)
// If a context is not provided, window is used.
//
// This type of mechanism is useful when you have defined a group
// of functions in the window/global scope and they are not ready
// to be formalized into a set of classes, or you have no intention
// of doing that
//
// To illustrate the issue, consider that a function
// which is defined in window/global scope
// does not have to use the this pointer to call a function of
// identical scope -- yet in a class member function, the this pointer
// MUST be used
// Therefore, trying to package such functions requires injecting
// the this pointer into function bodies where calls to associater
// functions are made
//
// Usage is primarily for development where one has control over
// global namespace pollution and the mechanism is useful in
// refactoring prior to formalization of methods into classes
var Singleton={
// Main call point
call:function(){
// Bail with error if no args
if (arguments.length==0) {
throw('Singleton: need at least 1 arg');
}
// As all functions in the local scope library below
// have access to the local scope via closure, we want to reduce
// pollution here, so lets attach locals to this call
// function instead of declaring locals
//
// Prepare to call anon fn
Singleton.call.args=arguments;
// Make ctx have args, context object, and function name
Singleton.call.ctx=(function (){// return args,ctx,name
// out
var args=[];
//locals
var x, fn;
// collapse identifier
var a=Singleton.call.args;
// closure object avail to functions, default to window
that=window;
// first real function argument
var arg_start=1;
// first arg must be function name or object
if (typeof a[0]=='string') {// use window ctx
fn=a[0];
// if first arg is object, second is name
}else if (typeof a[0]=='object') {
// assign given context
that=a[0];
// check second arg for string, function name
if (typeof a[1]!='string') {
var err='Singleton: second argument needs to be a fn name'
+' when first arg is a context object';
throw(err)
return;
}
// ok, have a name
fn=a[1];
// args follow
arg_start=2;
}else{
// improper arg types
var err='Singleton: first argument needs to be a string or object';
throw(err)
}
// build args array for function
for (x=arg_start;x<a.length;x++) {
args[args.length]=a[x];
}
// return context
return {
args: args
,that:that
,fn:fn
};
})();
// using function library present in local scope, try to find specified function
try{
Singleton.call.ctx.fun=eval(Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
}catch (e){
console.error('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
throw('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
}
// it must be a function
if (typeof Singleton.call.ctx.fun !== 'function') {
console.error('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
throw('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
}
// library functions use that instead of this
// that is visible to them due to closure
var that=Singleton.call.ctx.that;
// Do the call!
return Singleton.call.ctx.fun.apply(that, Singleton.call.ctx.args);
//
// cool library of functions below,
// functions see each other through closure and not through this.fn
function test(s){
alert(test2()+' test:'+s);
}
function info_props(){
console.info(this_props());
}
function test2(){
return 'test2';
}
function this_props(){
var s='';
for (var i in that) {
s+=' '+i;
}
return s;
};
}
};

What is the difference in the following JS syntax?

Following are two ways to define BW.Timer. Can someone tell me what the difference is? I am not certain the first is even valid, but if it is valid, what is different about using the myfunc=(function(){}()) syntax?
BW.Timer = (function () {
return {
Add: function (o) {
alert(o);
},
Remove: function (o) {
alert(o);
}
};
} ());
And...
BW.Timer = function () {
return {
Add: function (o) {
alert(o);
},
Remove: function (o) {
alert(o);
}
};
};

The first is the return-value of the immediately-invoked function. The second is a function. It essentially comes down to what the difference is between these:
var f = (function() { return 0; })();
var f = function() { return 0; };
Since the first function is called immediately, the value of 0 is given to the variable f. The first f is not a function. However, the second f we must call in order to get the value:
f(); // 0
It follows that in your example, the first BW.Timer is the object literal itself and the second is a function returning an object literal. You must call the function in order to get to the object:
BW.Timer().Add(x);
Why use the first then?
You might ask yourself why one would use a syntax like a = (function() { return {}; })() instead of a = {}, but there's a good reason. An IIFE (Immeditately-Invoked Function Expression), unlike a regular function allows the emulation of static variables (variables that maintain their value through a single instance). For example:
var module = (function() {
var x = 0;
return { get: function() { return x },
set: function(n) { x = n }
};
})();
The above a text-book example of the Module Pattern. Since the function is called right away, the variable x is instantiated and the return value (the object) is given to module. There's no way we can get to x other than by using the get and set methods provided for us. Therefore, x is static, meaning its variable won't be overridden each time you use module.
module.set(5);
module.get(); // 5
On the other hand, let's see an example where module is declared as a function instead:
// assume module was made as a function
module().set(5);
module().get(); // 0
When we call module() the x variable is overridden each time. So we're effectively using different instances of module and x each time we call module.

The difference is rather large.
In the first case, BW.Timer is executed when it is first encountered, and that is the static version assigned to BW.Timer. In that instance, BW.Timer.Add(1) may be used. Each call to BW.Timer will be the same object.
In the second case, BW.Timer is not executed when first encountered, and instead is a function referece which must be invoked BW.Timer(). For Add to be used, this must be the case BW.Timer().Add(1). Also, you can issue var timer = new BM.Timer();. Each instance of BW.Timer() will be unique here.

In the first example BW.Timer references an object that the self-executing function returns, while in the second example it references a function object, in other words it's a function that can be executed BW.Timer().

How to properly pass functions to other functions in javascript

I am trying to understand the way that javascript passes functions around and am having a bit of a problem groking why a prototype function can NOT access a var defined in a function constructor while a function defined in the constructor can access the var. Here is code that works:
var model = function model() {
this.state = 1;
this.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
}
var othermodel = function othermodel(mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = mdl.GetState;
}
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function() {
console.log(this.GetStateFn.call());
};
var m = new model();
var o = new othermodel(m)
o.WriteState();
This works and makes sense - the GetState() function can access this.state.
However, if I create GetState as follows:
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
The result will be an error that scope is not defined.
I would prefer to have this work with the prototype method as I do not want a copy of the function in ever model, but it would seem that prototype can't work because it can't access the specific instance of the model.
So, can someone provide me with a good explanation of a) what I need to do to get this to work with prototype (assuming I can) and b) if I can't get it to work with prototype, what is the reason so I can understand better the underpinnings of the issue.

Why not simply write the function this way
model.prototype.GetState = function() { return this.state; }
var othermodel = function othermodel(mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = mdl.GetState.bind(mdl);
}
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function() {
console.log(this.GetStateFn.call());
};
The above code will work, as in most cases you will execute code like m.GetState(). That is an example of invoking a function as an object method. In that case, this is guaranteed to point to the object m. You seem to know how the prototype chains work, so I won't go there.
When assigning the function reference to the other model, we use the .bind to ensure that within GetState, this points to mdl. Reference for bind: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
Your original IIFE's were in effect your implementation of bind. The issue was the value of this was wrong. Currently, every time you need to assign models function to some other function, you will need to use bind at all those times. You have tagged your question as node.js, bind is available on the Function prototype in node.js and any ES5 compatible browser. If you need to run the above code on older browsers or environments that do not support bind, replace bind with your IIFE.
As for why your code isn't working,
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
Here, this doesn't refer to the eventual model object (m). this can refer to any one of 5 options in javascript. Refer: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/this
Lets assume the above code is in an html file inside some script tag. Then this will refer to the window object. window doesn't have any property called state, hence the undefined. If you were to console.log(this.m, this.o) at the end of you script, you would see the respective m and o objects.

When defined like this:
var model = function model() {
this.state = 1;
this.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
}
the anonymous function is declared and immediately executed. this is passed as a parameter to that self-executing function. As a result - a new function is returned, but this function has scope parameter in its closure - so that it is accessible after the scope has exited. As a result - the function, when invoked, can still access state property of that "enclosed" this (the one that became scope and was closed upon).
If you define it like this:
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
the mechanism is the same, it's just this is not. It is now the context of the scope you execute the above code in. Assuming it's done in global scope - it would be window object.

If you don't want to use bind because of its support with older browsers, you could try this:
http://jsfiddle.net/j7h97/1/
var model = function (state) {
this.state = state || new Date().getTime();
};
model.prototype.GetState = function () {
return this.state;
};
model.prototype.WriteState = function () {
console.log("model WriteState: " + this.GetState());
};
var othermodel = function othermodel (mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = function () {
return mdl.GetState.call(mdl);
};
};
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function () {
console.log("othermodel WriteState: " + this.GetStateFn());
};
var model1 = new model();
model1.WriteState();
var othermodel1 = new othermodel(model1);
othermodel1.WriteState();
var model2 = new model();
model2.WriteState();
var othermodel2 = new othermodel(model2);
othermodel2.WriteState();
Seems to do what you want without bind. I created the model.prototype.WriteState for testing purposes.

It depends on where it is called. If it's in global scope, this will not refer the the model. If it's running in a browser it will refer to the global window object instead.

Any way to get the currently executing function object in javascript?

Is there any way to refer to the function object that you're currently executing in? If it's not a method of any object or not called with .call() or .apply(), the this pointer is likely just window, not the function object.
I often use a design pattern like this for global variables that I want scoped to a particular function as this keeps them out of the top level namespace:
function generateRandom() {
if (!generateRandom.prevNums) {
generateRandom.prevNums = {}; // generateRandom.prevNums is a global variable
}
var random;
do {
random = Math.floor((Math.random() * (99999999 - 10000000 + 1)) + 10000000);
} while (generateRandom.prevNums[random])
generateRandom.prevNums[random] = true;
return(random.toString());
}
But, I'd rather not have to spell out the function name every time I want to use a variable scoped to that object. If the name of the function ever changes, there are then a lot of places to change the name.
Is there any way to get the currently executing function object?

Well, you could use arguments.callee()...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/arguments/callee
From MDN:
Description
callee is a property of the arguments object. It can be used to refer
to the currently executing function inside the function body of that
function. This is for example useful when you don't know the name of
this function, which is for example the case with anonymous functions.
Note: You should avoid using arguments.callee() and just give every
function (expression) a name.
BUT...
What you really want are Javascript Prototypes.
function RandomSomethingGenerator()
{
this.prevNums = {};
}
RandomSomethingGenerator.prototype.generate = function() {
var random;
do {
random = Math.floor((Math.random() * (99999999 - 10000000 + 1)) + 10000000);
} while (this.prevNums[random])
this.prevNums[random] = true;
return(random.toString());
};
Why do I say this?
1.) You're dirtying the global space with all those functions.
2.) Even if you like Jani's suggestion, and you want a "static" function like you have now, my suggestion would be the same, but with a twist: Create your global function, and wrap an instance of an object (built from a prototype) inside the closure and make the call to it (so, basically, make yourself a singleton).
As in this (adapted from Jani's answer):
var randomSomething = (function() {
var randomSomethingGenerator = new RandomSomethingGenerator();
return function() {
randomSomethingGenerator.generate();
};
})();

I don't think there's any way to do exactly what you ask, but you could use a closure for your function-local static variables instead.
You can easily achieve this using an IIFE:
var generateRandom = (function() {
//any function's static variables go here
var prevNums = {};
return function() {
//function code goes here
var random;
do {
random = Math....
}
prevNums[random] = true;
return random.toString();
};
})();

You want arguments.callee. From MDN - callee:
callee is a property of the arguments object. It can be used to refer to the currently executing function inside the function body of that function. This is for example useful when you don't know the name of this function, which is for example the case with anonymous functions.
For example:
> foo = function() { console.log(arguments.callee); };
> bar = function() { foo() };
> bar();
function () { console.log(arguments.callee) }
However, I think this is being deprecated. The above link says, "The 5th edition of ECMAScript forbids use of arguments.callee() in strict mode."