We Keep Coding

How to check if a function does anything? [duplicate]

Let's have a function call
function doSomethingAndInvokeCallback(callback){
// do something
callback();
}
I can check if given argument is function if(typeof callback == 'function')
How can I discover, if given callback function is function and isn't empty?
like
doSomethingAndInvokeCallback(function(){
//nothing here
})

There is no totally reliable way to know if a function is empty because there are multiple kinds of functions in JS, some implemented with JS and some implemented with native code and you can't know for sure whether the function passed in does anything or not. If you want to limit the passed in function to only very simple JS functions, you could use the mechanisms outlined by other answers here (examining the source of the function). But, I would not recommend doing that in anything but a tightly controlled situation because there are lots of legal javascript ways to break that.
I would suggest that you should change the contract of your function arguments and have the caller pass null or not pass anything (which will make the argument undefined) rather than an empty function. Then, it will be very clear whether they intend to have a function called or not. If they then pass an empty function instead of null or undefined, they are getting the behavior that the interface of the function specifies. The caller can choose the desired behavior and you can implement your function in a more failsafe manner.
Also, one of your main suppositions in your question is not quite right. You cannot safely use typeof x == "function" to determine if something is a function as that will not work reliably in some older versions of IE for some types of functions. If you want to learn how to detect if something is a function at all, you can learn from jQuery here (even if you're not using it). jQuery has a function it uses internally all the time called jQuery.isFunction() that returns a bool. It uses that mostly for testing arguments to see if a function was passed.
Internally, it calls:
Object.prototype.toString.call(o)
and then examines the result. If the result has "Function" in it, then test test parameter is a function.
So, using the same technique used in jQuery, you could build your own simple little isFunction routine like this:
function isFunction(test) {
return(Object.prototype.toString.call(test).indexOf("Function") > -1);
}
Of course, if you have jQuery available, you could just use it's own version:
jQuery.isFunction(o)
When there are questions with potential cross browser compatibility issues, I find it instructional to look at how one of the big libraries solves the issue, even if you aren't going to be using that library. You can be sure that the libraries have been vetted against many browsers so a technique they are using is safe. You sometimes have to unwrap all their own internal routines they may use to figure out what they're really doing (which was the case for this function), but you can save yourself a lot of legwork.
You can see a working test bed for this here: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/PKcsM/
In modern browsers typeof fn === "function", but in older versions of IE, some functions give a typeof === "object" which is probably why jQuery uses this other method which does work in those older versions of IE.

It seems that you can define a function to retrieve the body of a function(1). I wrote a small (non-definitive) test of this:
http://jsfiddle.net/6qn5P/
Function.prototype.getBody =
function() {
// Get content between first { and last }
var m = this.toString().match(/\{([\s\S]*)\}/m)[1];
// Strip comments
return m.replace(/^\s*\/\/.*$/mg,'');
};
function foo() {
var a = 1, b = "bar";
alert(b + a);
return null;
}
console.log(foo.getBody());
console.log(foo.getBody().length);

One possibility is matching the .toString result against a regexp to get the function body, and then trim to check whether it has become an empty string:
var f = function foo() {
};
/^function [^(]*\(\)[ ]*{(.*)}$/.exec(
f.toString().replace(/\n/g, "")
)[1].trim() === ""; // true
That ugly regexp does take care of spaces aroung named functions as well as extraneous spaces before the name and the opening brace. Spaces like in foo () do seem to be removed, so there is no reason to check for those.

You might be able to get this from .toString():
var blank = function(){};
var f = function(){};
var f2 = function() { return 1; };
f.toString() == blank.toString(); // true
f2.toString() == blank.toString(); // false
but this is really prone to error:
var blank = function(){};
var f = function(){ }; // extra space!
f.toString() == blank.toString(); // false
You could munge the strings a bit to try to overcome this, but I suspect this is very browser-dependent. I wouldn't actually try to do this in a production environment if I were you. Even if you normalize the whitespace, it still won't catch other no-op lines, including comments, useless var statements, etc. To actually address these issues, you'd probably need a whole tokenizer system (or a crazy regex).

You can't do it for a host function, but for others, you can fairly reliably do
function isEmpty(f) {
return typeof f === "function" &&
/^function[^{]*[{]\s*[}]\s*$/.test(
Function.prototype.toString.call(f));
}
This isn't efficient, but major interpreters implement toString for functions in such a way that it works, though it will not work on some interpreters for some empty-ish functions
function () { /* nothing here */ }
function () { ; }
function () { return; }

In some implementation you can just do a toString() on the function and get it's content. Though it contains comments etcetera.
var foo = function(){ /* Comment */ };
alert(foo.toString());

javascript: prototype in javascript like reflection in c#, is it possible? [duplicate]

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

NewBee on NodeJs or PhantomJS: Function names on Javascript

I am just learning NodeJS and/or PhantonJS.
As a programmer with a lot of C experience, I do not like the way NodeJs code is written and find it a bit messy/unreadable. (Sorry if I ruffled any feathers)
In spirit of cleaning up the code, I was trying to do this and found a block.
In C or C++, we should be able to pass a function by name but in NodeJS/PhantomJS it does not seem to work.
Am I doing somthing wrong ?
Can someone explain to me how this is looked at by the Javascript interpreter ?
var page = require('webpage').create();
var printS = function (s) {
console.log(s);
phantom.exit();
}
/* This works */
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', function (s) {
console.log(s);
phantom.exit();
});
/* This does not work
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', printS(status));
*/
/*But this works
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', function (s) { printS(s);} );
*/

page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', printS(status));
fails because you're not passing the function but rather the result of invoking the function on status. If you want to pass the function, you'd do it this way
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', printS);

I thought it might be helpful to have a more extensive explanation. Let's start simple:
In JavaScript, we have values and variables. Variables are containers for values. Almost everywhere where we can use values, we can use variables.
In JavaScript source code, we express values through literals, e.g. the number literal 42. We can directly pass that value to a function:
f(42);
Additionally, instead of passing the value directly, we can pass a variable to the function:
var v = 42;
f(v);
That is, we can substitute values with variables.
Lets consider
var printS = function() { ... };
This clearly is a variable whose value is a function. If we'd directly pass that value to a function (i.e. we pass a function to a function), it would look like:
f(function() { ... }); // similar to f(42)
That's exactly what you have in your first case:
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', function (s) {
// ...
});
Since we know that we can replace values with variables, we can just substitute function() { ... } with printS:
var printS = function() { ... }; // similar to var v = 42;
f(printS); // similar to f(v)
So your example would become
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', printS);
What is wrong with
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', printS(status));
then?
Notice that you added additional characters after printS, namely (status). They don't appear in the your first example where you inlined the function:
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', function (s) {
// ...
});
There is no (status) here. Hence these two constructs cannot be not equivalent.
page.open accepts a function value as second argument, but printS(status) doesn't evaluate to the function printS, it calls the function printS and passes the return value to page.open.
Why does
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', function (s) { printS(s);} );
work?
Lets remove the content and the argument of the function, and it becomes:
page.open('http://net.tutsplus.com', function () { ... } );
That looks exactly like one of the examples above. function () { ... }, is a function literal, so to speak. It creates a function value. There are no (...) after it which would call the function.

This doesn't work as you hope because page.open wants a function as its second argument... this callback pattern is very common in JavaScript. In your doesn't-work example, printS is being called with status as its argument, and it returns undefined. As undefined is not a function, it doesn't behave as you wish.
In your browser console or the node repl:
> printS = function (s) { console.log(s); };
function (s) { console.log(s); }
> typeof printS('hi');
hi
"undefined"
> typeof function (s) { printS(s); };
"function"
Another thing to know about JavaScript is that its dynamic typing and fairly generous type coercion can result in baffling behavior with no helpful errors to point you towards the root cause of your problem. A debugger or copious use of console.log() is frequently helpful in understanding these sort of problems.

getting the name of a variable through an anonymous function

Is it possible to find the name of an anonymous function?
e.g. trying to find a way to alert either anonyFu or findMe in this code http://jsfiddle.net/L5F5N/1/
function namedFu(){
alert(arguments.callee);
alert(arguments.callee.name);
alert(arguments.callee.caller);
alert(arguments.caller);
alert(arguments.name);
}
var anonyFu = function() {
alert(arguments.callee);
alert(arguments.callee.name);
alert(arguments.callee.caller);
alert(arguments.caller);
alert(arguments.name);
}
var findMe= function(){
namedFu();
anonyFu();
}
findMe();
This is for some internal testing, so it doesn't need to be cross-browser. In fact, I'd be happy even if I had to install a plugin.

You can identify any property of a function from inside it, programmatically, even an unnamed anonymous function, by using arguments.callee. So you can identify the function with this simple trick:
Whenever you're making a function, assign it some property that you can use to identify it later.
For example, always make a property called id:
var fubar = function() {
this.id = "fubar";
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.id);
}
arguments.callee is the function, itself, so any property of that function can be accessed like id above, even one you assign yourself.
Callee is officially deprecated, but still works in almost all browsers, and there are certain circumstances in which there is still no substitute. You just can't use it in "strict mode".
You can alternatively, of course, name the anonymous function, like:
var fubar = function foobar() {
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
But that's less elegant, obviously, since you can't (in this case) name it fubar in both spots; I had to make the actual name foobar.
If all of your functions have comments describing them, you can even grab that, like this:
var fubar = function() {
/*
fubar is effed up beyond all recognition
this returns some value or other that is described here
*/
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.toString().substr(0, 128);
}
Note that you can also use argument.callee.caller to access the function that called the current function. This lets you access the name (or properties, like id or the comment in the text) of the function from outside of it.
The reason you would do this is that you want to find out what called the function in question. This is a likely reason for you to be wanting to find this info programmatically, in the first place.
So if one of the fubar() examples above called this following function:
var kludge = function() {
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.id); // return "fubar" with the first version above
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.name); // return "foobar" in the second version above
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.toString().substr(0, 128);
/* that last one would return the first 128 characters in the third example,
which would happen to include the name in the comment.
Obviously, this is to be used only in a desperate case,
as it doesn't give you a concise value you can count on using)
*/
}

Doubt it's possible the way you've got it. For starters, if you added a line
var referenceFu = anonyFu;
which of those names would you expect to be able to log? They're both just references.
However – assuming you have the ability to change the code – this is valid javascript:
var anonyFu = function notActuallyAnonymous() {
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
which would log "notActuallyAnonymous". So you could just add names to all the anonymous functions you're interested in checking, without breaking your code.
Not sure that's helpful, but it's all I got.

I will add that if you know in which object that function is then you can add code - to that object or generally to objects prototype - that will get a key name basing on value.
Object.prototype.getKeyByValue = function( value ) {
for( var prop in this ) {
if( this.hasOwnProperty( prop ) ) {
if( this[ prop ] === value )
return prop;
}
}
}
And then you can use
THAT.getKeyByValue(arguments.callee.caller);
Used this approach once for debugging with performance testing involved in project where most of functions are in one object.
Didn't want to name all functions nor double names in code by any other mean, needed to calculate time of each function running - so did this plus pushing times on stack on function start and popping on end.
Why? To add very little code to each function and same for each of them to make measurements and calls list on console. It's temporary ofc.
THAT._TT = [];
THAT._TS = function () {
THAT._TT.push(performance.now());
}
THAT._TE = function () {
var tt = performance.now() - THAT._TT.pop();
var txt = THAT.getKeyByValue(arguments.callee.caller);
console.log('['+tt+'] -> '+txt);
};
THAT.some_function = function (x,y,z) {
THAT._TS();
// ... normal function job
THAT._TE();
}
THAT.some_other_function = function (a,b,c) {
THAT._TS();
// ... normal function job
THAT._TE();
}
Not very useful but maybe it will help someone with similar problem in similar circumstances.

arguments.callee it's deprecated, as MDN states:
You should avoid using arguments.callee() and just give every function
(expression) a name.
In other words:
[1,2,3].forEach(function foo() {
// you can call `foo` here for recursion
})
If what you want is to have a name for an anonymous function assigned to a variable, let's say you're debugging your code and you want to track the name of this function, then you can just name it twice, this is a common pattern:
var foo = function foo() { ... }
Except the evaling case specified in the MDN docs, I can't think of any other case where you'd want to use arguments.callee.

No. By definition, an anonymous function has no name. Yet, if you wanted to ask for function expressions: Yes, you can name them.
And no, it is not possible to get the name of a variable (which references the function) during runtime.

Get name of prototype object

This question just got upvoted so can update question with what I did
I solved it by iterating over the window object (or user specified object root) and when I found the correct instance I backtracked and got the name from the index. The final solution can be found here
https://github.com/AndersMalmgren/Knockout.BindingConventions
Update end
I'm planning on writing a convention over configuration template source engine for KnockoutJS / MVC.
I'm started with a little client side POC and ran into a show stopper right away
My plan is use this syntax or something similar
MyApp.EditCustomersViewModel = function() {
ko.templates.loadView(this);
};
When doing this it will check the tamplate cache or fetch the templates from server using the object name as key.
The problem is I cant get the name of the prototype object, i tried this
Object.prototype.getName = function() {
var funcNameRegex = /function (.{1,})\(/;
var results = (funcNameRegex).exec((this).constructor.toString());
return (results && results.length > 1) ? results[1] : "";
};
If works for objects defined like this
function MyClass() {
}
If you add a prototype to the above object it will not work, or if you define it like this
MyApp = {};
MyApp.MyClass = function() {
};
Prototype and scoping is two musts so this is a showstopper, any ideas?
Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/aRWLA/
edit: The background for this is like this.
On the server you have structure like this
Templates\ [ViewName]\index.html
Templates\ [ViewName]\sub-model-template.html
on the client you will do
MyApp.EditCustomersViewModel = function() {
ko.templates.loadView(this);
};
which will generate a ajax request with the objects name as key, which will fetch all the templates for the view in question

Only hoisted functions (function someFunc() {) have a retrievable name.
Assigned functions do not, because you are not technically naming the function but creating an anonymous function and assigning a reference to it (in the memory) to a named variable.
So it's the var, not the function, that is named.
This makes the very idea of retrieving function names pretty much a none-starter, since in any vaguely mature pattern you'll be writing methods, not hoisted functions - and methods of course are assigned functions.
Named expressions (see other answers) are a partial workaround but these have other issues - not least lack of support in older IEs.
(Sidenote: I've long expected browser vendors to build around this such that the names of assigned functions became retrievable, but no joy yet AFAIK.)

I think you problem in improper replacing function prototype: if you replace function prototype object then you must preserve constructor member in prototype:
function Test1() {
}
Test1.prototype={
constructor: Test1
};
MyApp={};
MyApp.MyClass=function MyClass(){
};
MyApp.MyClass.prototype={
constructor: MyApp.MyClass
};
Your example: http://jsfiddle.net/aRWLA/1/
Modified example: http://jsfiddle.net/aRWLA/2/

You can make use of named function expressions:
MyApp.MyClass = function MyClass() { ... };
But note that (suprise) they don't work correctly in all versions of IE.
See: http://kangax.github.com/nfe/

THIS DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION
However, the code might be useful to other people, so I'm leaving it here, just in case. I don't expect upvotes, but please don't abuse it for downvoting either. Thanks.
I don't know your use case, as such I think you've got a design issue - the problem you describe shouldn't happen in practice.
But let's say you do need to have this working. An easy way to do what you need would be something like:
function findNamed(obj, fn){
for(var p in obj)
if(obj[p] === fn)
return p;
return false;
}
var m = {};
m.MyClass = function() {};
console.log(findNamed(m, m.MyClass));
Of course, the solution could be made into a more appropriate OOP form, but this is just to give an idea.
To replicate your use case, it would look like:
m.MyClass = function() {
findNamed(this, arguments.callee);
};
So, the final code is:
Object.prototype.getNameOfCall = function(fn) {
for(var p in this)
if(this[p] === fn)
return p;
throw "Callback not in object.";
};
var m = {};
m.MyClass = function() {
console.log(this.getNameOfCall(arguments.callee)); // MyClass
};
m.MyClass(); // test it out