Is there a way to print the value of temp (a closure variable) from a function defined outside the closure but referenced within the closure without passing temp as a variable to funcA?
var funcA, funcB;
funcA = function () {
console.log(temp);
}
funcB = function () {var temp, funcC;
temp = 1;
funcC = funcA;
funcC();
}
funcB(); // temp is undefined.
This works, but only because funcA is defined within funcB:
funcB = function () {var temp, funcA, funcC;
temp = 1;
funcA = function () {
console.log(temp);
}
funcC = funcA;
funcC();
}
funcB(); // 1
I'm trying to find a way to pull some function definitions out of outer functions to streamline code that's getting a little complex. Can I define funcA outside of funcB but still reference the temp variable without having to pass parameters?
I read that javascript does not have dynamic run time scoping, that it's only lexical scoping, but with referencing a function (funcA via funcC) within funcB, is there a way to meet the lexical scope requirement and provide access to the scoped variables for funcB?
Using Akinkunle Allen's comment, I came up with this which seems to solve my problem.
function funcB () {
var funcA, funcB, temp;
funcA = function () {
console.log(temp);
}
funcB = function () {var funcC;
temp = 1;
funcC = funcA;
funcC();
}
return funcB();
}
funcB(); // 1
Yes, and No.
The keyword var for declaring variables behaves different depending upon what the current scope is. When var is executed on the global scope it is optional. The variable becomes a property of the global object. When executing in the browser this global object is window.
So the following in global space has the same result.
var temp = 1;
window.temp = 1;
this.temp = 1;
All the above is just window.temp because of the global context.
When you use var inside a function then the variable is attached to the function. All functions in Javascript are objects so local var variables will live as long as the parent function is still being used somewhere.
Javascript will walk the hierarchy of executing scopes to find a variable identifier. So any inner functions can access their outer function variables (as in your example).
What you can do is play around with the this reference in functions.
The identifier this in Javascript is dynamic (meaning that you can change it). I can pass a variable to an unknown function that was declared outside the calling function. Since the this.temp is used to reference the variable the function funcA is able to display the value.
funcB = function(otherFunc)
{
this.temp = 1;
otherFunc();
}
funcA = function()
{
alert(this.temp);
}
funcB(funcA);
http://jsfiddle.net/thinkingmedia/dfLvj/
See the above jsfiddle example.
What you can do with this is change the meaning of this on the fly. Here is a better example.
funcB = function(otherFunc)
{
var temp = {
message: "Hello World!"
};
var foo = otherFunc.bind(temp);
foo();
}
funcA = function()
{
alert(this.message);
}
funcB(funcA);
http://jsfiddle.net/thinkingmedia/K5Pw6/
Dynamically changing this can have a lot of benefits by allowing a function to accept closure references that will be executed with a custom this reference.
An example might be a click event handler where this is the DOM element that triggered the event.
Related
If I create a callback within a function, can I get that callback to access the local variables within that function?
Obj.prototype.outerFunc = function()
{
var x = 0;
var callback = this.innerFunc;
callback();
}
Obj.prototype.innerFunc = function()
{
x++;
}
x naturally is not within the scope of innerFunc and will produce an error if called by itself. But if I call it from outerFunc can I extend innerFunc's scope in order to access x?
Edit: Should've mentioned that I don't want to pass arguments into the function or make x and instance of Obj. I'm more looking to treat innerFunc as though it was declared locally in outerFunc. Similar to what can be done below:
Obj.prototype.outerFunc = function()
{
var x = 0;
var callback = function() {
x++;
}
callback(); // works
}
Yes: this is exactly what function parameters are for. They allow you to pass a value from one scope into another.
Obj.prototype.outerFunc = function()
{
var x = 0;
var callback = this.innerFunc;
x = callback(x);
}
Obj.prototype.innerFunc = function(x)
{
x++;
return x;
}
Note that the value is sent to the other function, not the variable. So you need to return the value and assign it in order to use it.
If you're using prototypes, just set an instance property:
// constructor
var Obj = function () {}
Obj.prototype.outerFunc = function()
{
this.x = 0;
var callback = this.innerFunc.bind(this);
callback();
}
Obj.prototype.innerFunc = function()
{
this.x++;
}
var instance = new Obj()
instance.outerFunc()
console.log(instance.x) // returns 1
Edit: But #lonesomeday's answer is a much better solution as it takes a more functional approach avoiding side effects :)
The preffered way of doing this is to assign x to the scope of the object then all functions can access it, via this.x
Obj.prototype.outerFunc = function()
{
this.x= 0; // set x to zero
this.innerFunc();
}
Obj.prototype.innerFunc = function(x)
{
this.x++;
return this.x;
}
This is a bit hard to solve without knowing why you don't want to pass a parameter; if you just want to have a specific function signature, maybe a higher-order function might help?
Obj.prototype.outerFunc = function()
{
var x = 0;
var callback = this.innerFunc(x);
callback();
}
Obj.prototype.innerFunc = function(x)
{
return function () { /* use x in here */ };
}
This way you have two functions one inside the other. The outer one takes the parameter, and the inner one can access the variable that is passed to the outer one.
This of course only gives you half of what you demonstrate in your example: You can access the local variable but not modify it.
You can never access any function's internal variables from outside the function under any circumstances, in an OOP context or otherwise.
The only sort-of-exception is that a function A defined inside a function B, and returned from that function B, continues to have access to the variables in function B--the basic notion of closure.
I have no idea why you don't want to use instance variables. That's what they're for--sharing data across methods. I have no idea why you don't want to pass values in or out--that's what parameters and return values are for.
can I extend innerFunc's scope in order to access x?
No, you can't, whatever that means. There is no such notion in JS.
The closest you can come to what you seem to maybe want to do is to define the variable in the constructor:
function Obj() {
var x = 0;
this.outerFunc = function() {
var callback = this.innerFunc;
callback();
};
this.innerFunc = function() {
x++;
}
}
However, this will not work as-is because this.innerFunc is missing its context. Therefore, you would need to write
var callback = () => this.innerFunc();
However, it's a mystery why you would want to do this instead of just writing this.innerFunc().
function hello() {
var result = [];
var str = 'I am here';
function inner() {
var result = [];
for (var i=0;i<10;i++) {
result.push(i);
}
return result;
}
}
in the code above when I called the function hello(), the return value was an empty [], also it did not console.log the str from the inner function. However, in the below code set I have used a call back function:
function forEach(cb) {
for(var i =0;i<10;i++) {
cb(i);
}
}
function hello() {
var result = [];
var str = 'I am here';
forEach(function(num) {
console.log(str);
result.push(num);
});
return result;
}
the question is why both functions reacted, and gave a different output? Note; in both codes there was an inner function which supposed to create a new scope that can access the outer scope ? Does anyone have a good explanation for this issue ?
Thanks
In the first code block, inner is a new function that is declared inside of hello. It does not execute because you do not call it. It does create a new child scope inside of hello when it is called. But, since hello() doesn't actually return anything and doesn't call inner(), you get undefined when you call hello(). You could fix that by changing to this (you can run this snippet to see the return value):
function hello() {
var str = 'I am here';
// declare inner
function inner() {
var result = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
result.push(i);
}
return result;
}
// now call inner() and return its result
return inner();
}
console.log(hello());
Functions declared inside other functions do create a new scope. Every function declaration and corresponding call in Javascript creates a new scope. If the function is inside another function, then the code inside that inner function has access to both its local scope and to the parent scope and this can nest as deep as your nested function declarations go.
the question is why both functions reacted, and gave a different
output? Note; in both codes there was an inner function which supposed
to create a new scope that can access the outer scope ? Does anyone
have a good explanation for this issue ? Thanks
In the first example, you never called the inner function so it never executed.
In the second example, you pass an inline, anonymous function reference as a function argument to your forEach() function. When that forEach() function executes, it calls your callback function with the line of code cb(i) so that's how your callback function is getting called in the second example. forEach() calls it for you.
Also, in the second example, the locally declared callback function is accessing the parent scope and modifying the result array (which is perfectly allowable). In your first code example, you are declared a new result variable in the inner function scope and then returning that. You are not accessing the parent result variable. When you declare a local variable with the same name as a variable in the parent scope, the local variable overrides the parent variable (essentially hiding the parent variable) and any references to that variable in the local scope only access the local variable.
You could have written the first code example to use a parent scoped result variable like this:
function hello() {
var result = [];
var str = 'I am here';
// declare inner
function inner() {
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
result.push(i);
}
return result;
}
// now call inner() and return result
inner();
return result;
}
console.log(hello());
You have confused function declaration and calling.
Declaring a function can be done in multiple ways:
function myNewFunction() {}
Now this function exists in the current scope, but will not execute unless called.
You can call the function like this. Now your function will get executed.
myNewFunction();
Functions and their scopes can be compared to variables. Functions defined inside another function can only be accessed from inside the parent function. Let me give you an example.
function myMegaFunction() {
console.log("in mega");
function mySmallFunction() {
console.log("in small");
}
}
myMegaFunction();
This will only print - 'in mega'. If you call mySmallFunction() inside of myMegaFunction then both lines will get printed.
Now let's take a more complex scenario like this:
function myMegaFunction() {
console.log("in mega");
var str = "car";
var result = function mySmallFunction() {
console.log("in a small", str);
}
return result;
}
var resultingFunction = myMegaFunction();
resultingFunction();
This will first print the following:
in mega
in a small car
So essentially, this is functions being passed around like variables. They can be executed later on too.
i'm learning about functions. i'm confused in one scenario.
suppose i have three functions
<script>
var fnRef = function() {
console.log("i'm function with no name but refered to fnRef");
};
var funRef2 = function test() {
console.log("im test reffered to funRef2");
};
function test2() {
console.log("i'm test2 named function")
};
</script>
fnRef, fnref2 and test2 will be assigned to window as a property as fnRef and fnRef2 are variable and test2 is named function that act as variable.
but why test2 is not assigned to the global object(window) when refered by funref2? and why i'm not able to execute test(); can someone tell me what is happening in detail.
The named function expression is useful so you can access the function inside it's own scope without using arguments.callee, and it also makes it easier when debugging as the name can be seen in stack traces, breakpoints etc.
This name is then local only to the function bodys scope, meaning
var test1 = function test2() {
if (something) test2(); // available in this scope only
}
test2(); // not here
You can't call the function by it's name, only by the variable it's assigned to, as the functions name is limited to the functions scope when it's a function expression.
When defining a function declaration, the name is assigned to the current scope, and hoisted, so this
var bar = test();
function test() { return 'foo'; }
is more or less turned into this
var test = function() { return 'foo'; }
var bar = test();
function emergency() {
var ambulance = 100;
var callAmbulance = function() { alert(ambulance); }
ambulance++;
return callAmbulance;
}
var accident = emergency();
accident(); // alerts 101
I am referring to the variable 'ambulance'.
When I call accident(); it should call emergency() which should use the declared variable 'ambulance' [considering the global scope thing in javascript, still it could set the value to global] but its using old value 101 instead of setting again back to 100 - behaving more like static var.
What's the Explanation?
What you have there is called a closure. It means a function can access variables declared in outer functions (or in the global scope). It retains access even after the 'parent' function has returned. What you need to understand is that you don't get a copy. The changes performed on that variable are visible to your inner function, which in theory means you could have multiple functions sharing access to the same variable.
function f () {
var x = 0;
function a() { x += 1; }
function b() { x += 2; }
function show() { console.log(x); }
return {a:a, b:b, show:show};
}
var funcs = f();
funcs.a();
funcs.b();
funcs.show(); // 3
One thing to be aware of is that a subsequent call to f will create a new scope. This means a new x variable will be created (new a, b, show functions will be created as well).
var newFuncs = f();
newFuncs.a();
newFuncs.show(); // 1
funcs.a();
funcs.show(); // 4
So, how do you get a copy? Create a new scope.
function g () {
var x = 0;
var a;
(function (myLocal) {
a = function () { myLocal += 1; }
}(x));
x += 200;
return a;
}
JS only has pass-by-value so when you call the anonymous function, the xvariable's value will be copied into the myLocal parameter. Since a will always use the myLocal variable, not x, you can be certain that changes performed on the x variable will not affect your a function.
If, by any chance, you're coming from a PHP background you are probably used to do something like
use (&$message)
to allow modifications to be reflected in your function. In JS, this is happening by default.
You are creating a function definition which is not compiled at this time:
var callAmbulance = function() { alert(ambulance); }
And before you are sending it to the called function, you are incrementing the num:
ambulance++;
And then you are sending it to the called function:
return callAmbulance;
But whether you are sending it there or not, it doesn't matter. The below statement executes or compiles the function:
var accident = emergency();
And this takes in the current ambulance value which is 101 after the increment. This is an expected behaviour in creating function but not executing it. Please let me know, if you didn't understand this behaviour. I will explain it more clearly.
What I want to do is to sending data between two handlers.
element.onmousedown = function() {
data = precalculate();
}
element.onmouseup = function() {
dosomething(data);
}
if the data is a global variable it works. People says global variable is evil. But I don't know how to do without it.
or I misunderstood "global variable"?
Just scope the variable if you don't want/need it to be global:
(function() {
var data;
element.onmousedown = function() {
data = precalculate();
}
element.onmouseup = function() {
dosomething(data);
}
})();
EDIT: To clarify, the only way to create a new variable scope in javascript is in a function.
Any variable declared with var inside a function is inaccessible to the outer scope.
In the code above, I created an IIFE (immediately invoked function expression), which is simply a function that is invoked as soon as it is created, and I placed your data variable (along with the handler assignments) inside of it.
Because the handlers were created in a scope that has access to the data variable, they retain their access to that variable.
To give another example:
var a = "a"; // global variable
(function() {
var b = "b"; // new variable in this scope
(function() {
var c = "c"; // new variable in this scope
// in this function, you have access to 'a', 'b' and 'c'
})();
// in this function you have access to 'a' and 'b' variables, but not 'c'
})();
// globally, you have access to the 'a' variable, but not 'b' or 'c'
In this case a global variable would make sense. Another possibility is to attach the value to the DOM element:
element.onmousedown = function() {
// 'this' should point to the element being mouse downed
this.data = precalculate();
};
element.onmouseup = function() {
// 'this' should point to the element being mouse upped
var data = this.data;
dosomething(data);
};
You misunderstood "global variable is evil".
In fact, what really happened is that someone wanted to be "part of the crowd", and so told you a sweeping generalisation, when in fact they should have said "only use global variables where appropriate".
Well, they are appropriate here, my friend.
JQuery makes this possible by using the .data() function:
http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.data/
You can get away with using global variables as long as you keep them to a minimum, for example you can place stuff in a single global namespace:
App = {};
element.onmousedown = function() {
App.data = "hello";
}
element.onmouseup = function() {
console.log(App.data);
}
Another more general solution is to create functions that cache their results using a technique that is called memoization. There's plenty of stuff if you search.
The following code does exactly that :
Function.prototype.memoize = function() {
var fn = this;
this.memory = {};
return function() {
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
return fn.memory[args] ? fn.memory[args] : fn.memory[args] = fn.apply(this, arguments);
};
};
e.g. You have an expensive function called exfunc..
newFunc = exfunc.memoize();
The above statement creates a new function called newFunc that caches the result of the original function so that the first time the actual code is being executed and all subsequent calls are retrieved from a local cache.
This mostly works with functions whose return value does not depend on global state.
More info :
http://osteele.com/archives/2006/04/javascript-memoization