We Keep Coding

Confusion understanding closures

Conceptually closures make a bit of sense to what's happening, but in practice, I have no idea what's going on. For the problem I am dealing with I want to count the occurrences of numbers I read in and store it in a histogram. This is supposed to happen in the countOccurences function, but the histogram array never gets updated.
var LinkedList = function() {
this.head = null;
}
LinkedList.prototype.add = function(val) {
this.head = {data: val, next: this.head};
};
LinkedList.prototype.forEach = function(action) {
for (var temp = this.head; temp; temp = temp.next) {
action(temp.data);
}
};
// This is where the closure concept should take effect
var countOccurrences = function(histogram) {
return function(val){ // Not working as expected, The val should equal
// a number found in the list. Take for example if
// 1 is found then histogram[1]++. Meaning we've
// seen the number 1 once in the list so far. This
// continues until the entire list has been processed.
histogram[val]++;
};
}
function printHistogram(histogram) {
for (var i in histogram) {
if (histogram[i]) {
println("(#" + i + ":" + histogram[i] +")")
}
}
}
var main = function() {
var list = new LinkedList(); //Creates empty linkedlist
var histogram = [];
while (ln = readln().trim()) { //Reads in numbers from stdin
list.add(ln)
}
list.forEach(countOccurrences(histogram))
printHistogram(histogram)
}; main()

The actual closure was going wrong because of the lack of a return statement initially. However, after that, I found another bug that was unrelated to closure. The problem was in the function because I was incrementing a number that wasn't initialized. So the fix is as follows:
var countOccurrences = function(histogram) {
return function(val) {
if(histogram[val])
histogram[val]++;
else
histogram[val] = 1;
};
}
Regardless, much apperciation for the help.

Your closure is not actually returning a function. Not exactly sure how you are counting or what those values will be but you definitely need to start by returning your function from your closure.
var LinkedList = function() {
this.head = null;
}
LinkedList.prototype.add = function(val) {
this.head = {
data: val,
next: this.head
};
};
LinkedList.prototype.forEach = function(action) {
for (var temp = this.head; temp; temp = temp.next) {
action(temp.data);
}
};
// This is where the closure concept should take effect
var countOccurrences = function(histogram) {
return function(val) { // Not working as expected, I'm tring to get val to
// be the data passed in from forEach which will
// then be incremeted accordingly in the histogram
// array
histogram[val] = histogram[val] ? histogram[val] + 1 : 1;
};
}
function printHistogram(histogram) {
for (var i in histogram) {
if (histogram[i]) {
println("(#" + i + ":" + histogram[i] + ")")
}
}
}
var main = function() {
var list = new LinkedList(); //Creates empty linkedlist
var histogram = [];
while (ln = readln().trim()) { //Reads in numbers from stdin
list.add(ln)
}
list.forEach(countOccurrences(histogram))
printHistogram(histogram)
};
main()

Is there something wrong with this following singleton pattern?

I come across singleton pattern, it's quite tricky to understand how to implement it, and I know some people would suggest to avoid it most of the time, so below is specific singleton variation that I find it easy to understand, but somehow I feel that this is not the best implementation of this pattern, can you guys suggest better form of this pattern.
var Foo = (function () {
var instance;
var _priVar = 2;
var log = function() {
console.log("Hello");
};
function Singleton(x, y) {
if (instance) {
return instance;
}
this.name = x;
this.age = y + _priVar;
this.log = log;
instance = this;
}
Singleton.getInstance = function () {
return instance || new Singleton();
}
return Singleton;
}());
and my goal is that when we do following
var a = new Foo("Bob", 24);
var b = new Foo();
var c = Foo();
var d = Foo.getInstance();
we will still get
a == b // true
a == c // true
a == d // true
a.name // 'Bob'
b.age // 26
c.log // 'Hello'
d.name // 'Bob'

The simplest singleton, also known as module pattern, consists of an object literal:
var foo = (function () {
var x = "Bob",
y = 24,
_priVar = 2;
function log() {
console.log("Hello");
}
return {
name: x,
age: y + _priVar,
log: log
};
}());
If you want to introduce lazy initialisation, you can use an extra getInstance function like in your implementation:
var getFoo = (function () {
var instance = null;
return function getFooInstance() {
if (instance) return instance;
var x = "Bob",
y = 24,
_priVar = 2;
function log() {
console.log("Hello");
}
return instance = {
name: x,
age: y + _priVar,
log: log
};
};
}());
A singleton should never use a constructor like in your code, that's just unnecessary. If you feel a need to pass arguments for initialisation, don't make it a singleton.

JavaScript compose functions

I am reading a book which contains the following example:
var composition1 = function(f, g) {
return function(x) {
return f(g(x));
}
};
Then the author writes: "...naive implementation of composition, because it does not take the execution context into account..."
So the preferred function is that one:
var composition2 = function(f, g) {
return function() {
return f.call(this, g.apply(this, arguments));
}
};
Followed by an entire example:
var composition2 = function composition2(f, g) {
return function() {
return f.call(this, g.apply(this, arguments));
}
};
var addFour = function addFour(x) {
return x + 4;
};
var timesSeven = function timesSeven(x) {
return x * 7;
};
var addFourtimesSeven2 = composition2(timesSeven, addFour);
var result2 = addFourtimesSeven2(2);
console.log(result2);
Could someone please explain to me why the composition2 function is the preferred one (maybe with an example)?
EDIT:
In the meantime i have tried to use methods as arguments as suggested, but it did not work. The result was NaN:
var composition1 = function composition1(f, g) {
return function(x) {
return f(g(x));
};
};
var composition2 = function composition2(f, g) {
return function() {
return f.call(this, g.apply(this, arguments));
}
};
var addFour = {
myMethod: function addFour(x) {
return x + this.number;
},
number: 4
};
var timesSeven = {
myMethod: function timesSeven(x) {
return x * this.number;
},
number: 7
};
var addFourtimesSeven1 = composition1(timesSeven.myMethod, addFour.myMethod);
var result1 = addFourtimesSeven1(2);
console.log(result1);
var addFourtimesSeven2 = composition2(timesSeven.myMethod, addFour.myMethod);
var result2 = addFourtimesSeven2(2);
console.log(result2);

This just answers what composition2 actually does:
composition2 is used when you want to keep this as context in the functions itself. The following example shows that the result is 60 by using data.a and data.b:
'use strict';
var multiply = function(value) {
return value * this.a;
}
var add = function(value) {
return value + this.b;
}
var data = {
a: 10,
b: 4,
func: composition2(multiply, add)
};
var result = data.func(2);
// uses 'data' as 'this' inside the 'add' and 'multiply' functions
// (2 + 4) * 10 = 60
But yet, it still breaks the following example (unfortunately):
'use strict';
function Foo() {
this.a = 10;
this.b = 4;
}
Foo.prototype.multiply = function(value) {
return value * this.a;
};
Foo.prototype.add = function(value) {
return value + this.b;
};
var foo = new Foo();
var func = composition2(foo.multiply, foo.add);
var result = func(2); // Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'b' of undefined
Because the context of composition2 (this) is undefined (and is not called in any other way, such as .apply, .call or obj.func()), you'd end up with this being undefined in the functions as well.
On the other hand, we can give it another context by using the following code:
'use strict';
var foo = new Foo();
var data = {
a: 20,
b: 8,
func: composition2(foo.multiply, foo.add)
}
var result = data.func(2);
// uses 'data' as 'this'
// (2 + 8) * 10 = 200 :)
Or by explicitly setting the context:
'use strict';
var multiply = function(value) {
return value * this.a;
};
var add = function(value) {
return value + this.b;
};
var a = 20;
var b = 8;
var func = composition2(multiply, add);
// All the same
var result1 = this.func(2);
var result2 = func.call(this, 2);
var result3 = func.apply(this, [2]);

composition1 would not pass arguments other than the first to g()
If you do:
var composition1 = function(f, g) {
return function(x1, x2, x3) {
return f(g(x1, x2, x3));
}
};
the function will work for the first three arguments. If you however want it to work for an arbitrary number, you need to use Function.prototype.apply.
f.call(...) is used to set this as shown in Caramiriel's answer.

I disagree with the author.
Think of the use-case for function-composition. Most of the time I utilize function-composition for transformer-functions (pure functions; argument(s) in, result out and this is irrelevant).
2nd. Utilizing arguments the way he does it leads into a bad practice/dead end, because it implies that the function g() might depend on multiple arguments.
That means, that the composition I create is not composable anymore, because it might not get all arguments it needs.
composition that prevents composition; fail
(And as a side-effect: passing the arguments-object to any other function is a performance no-go, because the JS-engine can't optimize this anymore)
Take a look at the topic of partial application, usually misreferenced as currying in JS, wich is basically: unless all arguments are passed, the function returns another function that takes the remaining args; until I have all my arguments I need to process them.
Then you should rethink the way you implement argument-order, because this works best when you define them as configs-first, data-last.Example:
//a transformer: value in, lowercased string out
var toLowerCase = function(str){
return String(str).toLowerCase();
}
//the original function expects 3 arguments,
//two configs and the data to process.
var replace = curry(function(needle, heystack, str){
return String(str).replace(needle, heystack);
});
//now I pass a partially applied function to map() that only
//needs the data to process; this is really composable
arr.map( replace(/\s[A-Z]/g, toLowerCase) );
//or I create another utility by only applying the first argument
var replaceWhitespaceWith = replace(/\s+/g);
//and pass the remaining configs later
arr.map( replaceWhitespaceWith("-") );
A slightly different approach is to create functions that are, by design, not intended to get all arguments passed in one step, but one by one (or in meaningful groups)
var prepend = a => b => String(a) + String(b); //one by one
var substr = (from, to) => value => String(str).substr(from, to); //or grouped
arr.map( compose( prepend("foo"), substr(0, 5) ) );
arr.map( compose( prepend("bar"), substr(5) ) );
//and the `to`-argument is undefined; by intent
I don't intend to ever call such functions with all the arguments, all I want to pass them is their configs, and to get a function that does the job on the passed data/value.
Instead of substr(0, 5, someString), I would always write someString.substr(0, 5), so why take any efforts to make the last argument (data) applyable in the first call?

difference between these two ways of creating a 'private' property in Javascript

I am trying to simulate a simple Holder "class" in JavaScript with a "private" property that holds something and "public" getter and setter "methods" to access the value.
The approach exhibited by HolderA below is mentioned e.g. here. The other approach I more or less arrived at by mutation but I guess it must be recognizable as an idiom as well. I like it because it contains no this or prototype stuff and seems very elementary and functional. Is there a difference between the two?
The test code (I run it under nodejs) seems to suggest that the two approaches are identical except that in the first case the objects I get have typeof object whereas in the second function.
var test = function(o) {
var initialValueCorrect = (!(typeof o.getX()==='undefined'))&&(o.getX()===0);
var VALUE_TO_SET = 10;
o.setX(VALUE_TO_SET);
var getSetWorks = o.getX()===VALUE_TO_SET;
var xIsPrivate = (typeof o.x === 'undefined');
var xHasCorrectValue;
if (!xIsPrivate)
xHasCorrectValue = o.x === VALUE_TO_SET;
return {initialValueCorrect: initialValueCorrect,
getSetWorks : getSetWorks,
xIsPrivate: xIsPrivate,
xHasCorrectValue: xHasCorrectValue};
};
var HolderA = (function() {
function foo(x) {
this.getX = function() {
return x;
};
this.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
};
return foo;
})();
var createHolderB = (function() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
}
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
})();
var objects = [{object: new HolderA(0), name: "approach with constructor-invocation and 'this'"},
{object: createHolderB(0), name: "approach with normal function invocation and closed variable"}];
for (var i = 0; i<objects.length ; i++) {
var testResult = test(objects[i].object);
console.log('['+objects[i].name+']: the object is a: '+(typeof objects[i].object)
+'\n\n\t\t\t'+JSON.stringify(testResult)+'\n\n\n\n\n');
}
update
As Bergi has pointed out function createHolderB in my code above is plain wrong and only creates a singleton object. So, is not really a "constructor" function. To that end I've now created createHolderC which can be used to really create multiple objects with a hidden private property like this:
var objectC1 = createHolderC()(0);
Now, is there any material difference between HolderA and the createHolderC function or is the difference purely stylistic?
var createHolderC = function () {
return (function() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
};
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
})();
};

createHolderB does not create new holders like HolderA does. It's essentially a singleton pattern. You might also want to call it a module. Notice that createHolderB() === createHolderB.
createHolderC is still different from HolderA in that it returns function objects, not instances. You may see the differences better when you strip out the unnecessary IEFEs:
function HolderA(x) {
this.getX = function() {
return x;
};
this.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
// implicit `return this;` when called via `new`
}
function createHolderC() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
};
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
}
A typical factory would rather look like this:
function createHolderD(x) {
var foo = {};
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
}
(or even with return {getX: …, setX: …};), the only difference to HolderA is the prototypical inheritance then.

Basically both exhibits the private access behavior to the x variable. But the difference between those two are
Constructor function
var HolderA = (function() {
function foo(x) {
this.getX = function() {
return x;
};
this.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
};
return foo;
})();
This is a self executing function, where it returns Constructor foo.
That is the reason you are using new while creating this type of holder {object: new HolderA(0)
A function
var createHolderB = (function() {
var x;
function foo(_x) {
x = _x;
return foo;
}
foo.getX = function() {
return x;
};
foo.setX = function(_x) {
x = _x;
};
return foo;
})();
Even this is also a self executing function, but while execution it creates x variable and returns function foo, and foo access x by closure.
You are creating this type of holder just by normal function call object: createHolderB(0).

Both cases are really bad in practice.
If you're making closures (anonymous functions) that hold your "private variable" scope, it means you're creating those functions for every instance of the class. That costs memory and performance. I used to create classes like this, but then once I was making large number of instances and found out that it hits performance hard.
Just as in Python, make private variables private by some convention, like underscore in _name. Then you can break it for debug reasons (because variables in closure scope are not accessible).
This is how I would do it:
function MyClass(arg) {
this._privateVar = arg;
}
MyClass.prototype.getPrivateVar = function() {
return this._privateVar;
}
You can also make getters and setters:
Object.defineProperty(MyClass.prototype, "privateVar", {
get: function() {
return this._privateVar;
}
}
But don't try to push javascript into things it's not designed to, or you'll pay with performance, code readability and debugging complexity. Applies to other languages too.

Accessing a method inside a closure [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Accessing variables trapped by closure
(8 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm trying to reference the method UTCDate() from another JS file that loads after this file bootstrap-datepicker.js.
Is there a way for me to access this method.
I tried using just UTCDate() I even tried window.UTCDate().
Here is the original file bootstrap-datepicker.js and they seem to be calling it directly inside the datePicker itself.
(function($, undefined){
var $window = $(window);
function UTCDate(){
return new Date(Date.UTC.apply(Date, arguments));
}
function UTCToday(){
var today = new Date();
return UTCDate(today.getFullYear(), today.getMonth(), today.getDate());
}
function alias(method){
return function(){
return this[method].apply(this, arguments);
};
}
var DateArray = (function(){
var extras = {
get: function(i){
return this.slice(i)[0];
},
contains: function(d){
// Array.indexOf is not cross-browser;
// $.inArray doesn't work with Dates
var val = d && d.valueOf();
for (var i=0, l=this.length; i < l; i++)
if (this[i].valueOf() === val)
return i;
return -1;
},
remove: function(i){
this.splice(i,1);
},
replace: function(new_array){
if (!new_array)
return;
if (!$.isArray(new_array))
new_array = [new_array];
this.clear();
this.push.apply(this, new_array);
},
clear: function(){
this.length = 0;
},
copy: function(){
var a = new DateArray();
a.replace(this);
return a;
}
};
return function(){
var a = [];
a.push.apply(a, arguments);
$.extend(a, extras);
return a;
};
})();

That is how closures work: They close over variables.
function UTCDate(){
return new Date(Date.UTC.apply(Date, arguments));
}
is private to your IIFE.
You should better switch to The Revealing Module Pattern:
var myDateApp=function(){
...
function UTCDate(){
return new Date(Date.UTC.apply(Date, arguments));
}
...
return {
...
UTCDate:UTCDate,
...
};
}();
Then you could easily access the function UTCDate via myDateApp.UTCDate().
Or switch later on to AMD.

You can't without modifying the code to export that method outside the anonymous closure.