I'm working on some script for a set of functions that all operate from one call and take a large number of parameters to return one value. The main function requires the use of 11 other functions which need to work with the same parameters. I have it structured somewhat like this:
function mainfunction(param1, param2, ..., param16)
{
//do a bunch of stuff with the parameters
return output;
}
function secondaryfunction1()
{
//gets called by mainfunction
//does a bunch of stuff with the parameters from mainfunction
}
Is there anything I can do to make the parameters passed to mainfunction available to all the secondary functions without passing them or making them global variables? If not, that's fine, I'll pass them as parameters - I'm curious as to whether or not I can do it more elegantly.
You can place the definition of secondaryfunction1 inside mainfunction:
function mainfunction(param1, param2, ..., param16){
function secondaryfunction1() {
// use param1, param2, ..., param16
}
secondaryfunction1();
}
Update:
As #dystroy pointed out, this is viable if you don't need to call secondaryfunction1 somewhere else. Where the list of parameters would be coming from in this case - I don't know.
You could use arguments to pass to secondaryFunction1 all the arguments of mainfunction. But that would be silly.
What you should probably do, and what is usually done, is embed all the parameters in an "options" object :
function mainfunction(options){
secondaryfunction1(options);
}
function secondaryfunction1(options) {
// use options.param1, etc.
}
// let's call it
mainfunction({param1: 0, param2: "yes?"});
This leds to other advantages, like
naming the parameters you pass, it's not a good thing for maintenance to have to count the parameters to know which one to change. No sane library would let you pass 16 parameters as direct unnamed arguments to a function
enabling you to pass only the needed parameters (the other ones being default)
#Igor 's answer (or some variation) is the way to go. If you have to use the functions elsewhere, though (as #dystroy pointed out), then there is another possibility. Combine your parameters together into an object, and pass that object to the secondary functions.
function combineEm() {
// Get all parameters into an array.
var args = [].slice.call(arguments, 0),
output = {},
i;
// Now put them in an object
for (i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
output["param" + i] = args[i];
}
return output;
}
From your main function, you can do:
function mainfunction(param1, param2, ..., param16) {
var params = combineEm(param1, param2, ..., param16);
var output = secondaryfunction(params);
// etc.
return output;
}
Edit: I just wanted to clarify that all of the proposed suggestions so far do work. They just each have their own trade-offs/benefits.
I tried just suggesting some changes to other answers, but ultimately I felt like I needed to just post my solution to this.
var externalFn = function(options) {
var str = options.str || 'hello world';
alert(str);
};
var main = function(options) {
var privateMethod = function() {
var str = options.str || "foobar";
alert("str: " + str);
};
// Bind a private version of an external function
var privateMethodFromExternal = externalFn.bind(this, options);
privateMethod();
privateMethodFromExternal();
};
main({ str: "abc123"});
// alerts 'str: abc123'
// alerts 'abc123'
main({});
// alerts 'str: foobar'
// alerts 'hello world'
It seems like the main point of the question is that the functions used by the 'main function' shouldn't have to keep having the options/context passed to them.
This example shows how you can use privateMethods inside the function
It also shows how you can take external functions (that you presumably use outside of main) and bind a private method version of them for use inside main.
I prefer using some sort of 'options' object, but that aspect isn't really that important to the question of scoping that the OP was really asking about. You could use 'regular' parameters as well.
This example can be found on codepen.
Here's an incredibly naughty solution, if you're interested in that sort of thing.
var f1 = function() {
var a = 1;
var _f2 = f2.toString().replace(/^function[^{}]+{/, '');
_f2 = _f2.substr(0, _f2.length - 2);
eval(_f2);
}
var f2 = function(a) {
var a = a || 0;
console.log(a);
}
f2(); // logs 0
f1(); // logs 1
It executes the contents of some external function entirely in the current scope.
However, this sort of trickery is almost definitely an indicator that your project is mis-organized. Calling external functions should usually be no more difficult than passing an object around, as dystroy's answer suggests, defining the function in-scope, as Igor's answer suggests, or by attaching some external function to this and writing your functions primarily against the properties of this. Like so:
var FunLib = {
a : 0,
do : function() {
console.log(this.a);
}
}
var Class = function() {
this.a = 1;
this.do = FunLib.do;
this.somethingThatDependsOnDo = function() {
this.a++;
this.do();
}
}
var o = new Class();
FunLib.do() // 0
o.do() // 1
o.somethingThatDependsOnDo(); // 2
o.do() // 2 now
Similarly, and possibly better-solved with a class hierarchy.
function BasicShoe {
this.steps_taken = 0;
this.max_steps = 100000;
this.doStep = function() {
this.steps_taken++;
if (this.steps_taken > this.max_steps) {
throw new Exception("Broken Shoe!");
}
}
}
function Boot {
this.max_steps = 150000;
this.kick_step_equivalent = 10;
this.doKick = function() {
for (var i = 0; i < this.kick_step_equivalent; i++) {
this.doStep();
}
}
}
Boot.prototype = new BasicShoe();
function SteelTippedBoot {
this.max_steps = 175000;
this.kick_step_equivalent = 0;
}
SteelTippedBoot.prototype = new Boot();
Related
What am I doing wrong, and how can one pass variables to a different function within the same wrapping variable/function.
Example:
function customFunctionWrap(){
this.myVar1 = 0;
this.getCurrentPosition = function(){
if (navigation.geolocation) {
navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(function(position){});
}
},
this.doSomething = function(){ // Works
//Do something, return
this.callWithParams(); //Works
},
//If I remove passing in 'value1',calling it elsewhere works
this.doSomethingWithParams = function(value1){
//Use value1
//Return
},
this.callWithParams = function(){
var value1 = 'xyz'; //Is a variable that changes based on some DOM element values and is a dynamic DOM element
this.doSomethingWithParams(value1); //THROWS TYPEDEF ERROR: this.doSomethingWithParams is not a function
this.getCurrentPosition();
}
};
var local = new customFunctionWrap();
local.doSomething(); //WORKS
I know there is another way to do it and then directly use customFunctionWrap.callWithParams(), but am trying to understand why the former approach is erroring out.
var customFunctionWrap = {
myVar1 : 0,
callWithParams : function(){
}
}
What JS sees:
var customFunctionWrap = (some function)()
returned function is fired, because the last (), so it has to yield/return something, otherwise, like in your code it is "returning" undefined.
So your given code does not work.
The very first fix is to delete last 2 characters from
var customFunctionWrap = (some function)()
to make it return constructor.
Maybe some of you know about AOP, in some languages using AOP can lead you to be able to inject code after, before, or while a method is executing,etc.
What I want is to apply the same in Javascript, I am currently working on a massive app which has more than 300 ajax calls, and every time I need to do some change on the catch statement on them, I have to modify them one by one which is very tedious.
What I want to do is something like :
functionName.before("try {")
functionName.after("} catch(ex){
//dostuff
}")
Is it possible? I know there are things like .call, or the arguments object inside every function..which seem pretty meta-function (AOP) functionalities.
Not with before and after, but a wrap will work:
Function.prototype.wrapTry = function(handle) {
var fn = this;
return function() {
try {
return fn.apply(this, arguments);
} catch(e) {
return handle(e);
}
};
};
Then use it like
var safeFunction = functionName.wrapTry(doStuff);
In JavaScript, functions are first-class objects. That means you can manipulate or redeclare them.
Assuming that there is a "foo" function:
var originalFoo = foo;
foo = function()
{
// "before" code.
// Call the original function.
originalFoo.apply(this, arguments);
// "after" code.
};
After that, any call to foo() will call the new function: even with parameters.
Old question but you may take a look over this https://github.com/k1r0s/kaop-ts/blob/master/docs/api.md#available-join-points
import { onException } from "kaop-ts"
import handlingException from "./somewhere"
class Something {
#onException(handlingException)
method() {
// stuff that may throw an error
}
}
I also will give a late answer in order to shed some light onto this special case that every then and now pops up as JavaScript and AOP.
Firstly, cases like the very one presented by the OP always ask for modifying already existing functionality, thus targeting closed code that sometimes is not even owned by the party that sees itself challenged from modifying the control flow of such code.
Why then, not just name it like that ... JavaScript method modification or JavaScript method modifiers.
Secondly, because of already riding the horse of terminology, altering closed functionality in JavaScript has nothing to do with Aspect-oriented Programming unless an implementation that claims to be AO provides abstraction and code-reuse levels for at least Aspect, Advice and Pointcut.
Last, for what the OP is going to achieve and what also has been the accepted answer, there does exist a a whole bunch of before, after around / wrap solutions, almost always unfortunately mentioning AO(P), and in far too many cases not taking care of the context or target which is essential to method modification.
The example I do provide uses a prototypal implementation of afterThrowing. Because JavaScript already features a standardized bind, I'm firmly convinced that Function.prototype is the right place as well for some other method-modifiers
like before, after, around, afterThrowing
and afterFinally.
// OP's example pseudo code
//
// functionName.before("try {")
//
// functionName.after("} catch(ex){
// dostuff
// }")
function doStuffAfterThrowing(exception, originalArguments) {
"use strict";
var context = this;
console.log('context : ', context);
console.log('String(exception) : ', String(exception));
console.log('originalArguments : ', originalArguments);
return "safely handled exception";
}
function doFail() {
throw (new ReferenceError);
}
function oneOutOfManyAjaxCallbacks(payload) {
doFail();
}
var jsonData = {
"foo": "foo",
"bar": "bar"
};
var someModifiedAjaxCallback = oneOutOfManyAjaxCallbacks.afterThrowing(doStuffAfterThrowing, { x: 'y' });
// does fail controlled/handled.
console.log('someModifiedAjaxCallback(jsonData) : ', someModifiedAjaxCallback(jsonData));
// does fail "Uncaught".
console.log('oneOutOfManyAjaxCallbacks(jsonData) : ', oneOutOfManyAjaxCallbacks(jsonData));
.as-console-wrapper { min-height: 100%!important; top: 0; }
<script>
(function (Function) {
var
isFunction = function (type) {
return (
(typeof type == "function")
&& (typeof type.call == "function")
&& (typeof type.apply == "function")
);
},
getSanitizedTarget = function (target) {
return ((target != null) && target) || null;
}
;
Function.prototype.afterThrowing = function (handler, target) { // afterThrowing
target = getSanitizedTarget(target);
var proceed = this ;
return (isFunction(handler) && isFunction(proceed) && function () {
var ret, args = arguments;
try {
ret = proceed.apply(target, args);
} catch (exc) {
ret = handler.call(target, exc, args);
//throw exc;
}
return ret;
}) || proceed;
};
}(Function));
</script>
Having come that far one might also consider reading ...
sandwich pattern in javascript code
Can you alter a Javascript function after declaring it?
I am trying to make a class with private variables in requirejs. ( means I don't want anyone to access this variable and only private method can be used.)
numbox.js
define(function(){
var counter=0;
function Numbox(){
}
Numbox.prototype = {
add_and_show:function(){
counter++; alert(counter);
}
}
return Numbox;
}
This is not correct if I create any new instance of Numbox and call the method, all instances will share the same counter as follows.
require(['numbox.js'], function(Numbox){
var box1 = new Numbox();
var box2 = new Numbox();
box1.add_and_show(); // alert(1);
box2.add_and_show(); // alert(2); instead of "1"
}
And even though I put counter under constructer function as follows, It can work but it does not realize my goal as I want it to be private. (I can still access "counter" by box1.counter or box2.counter)
numbox.js
define(function(){
function Numbox(){
this.counter =0;
}
Numbox.prototype = {
add_and_show:function(){
this.counter++; alert(this.counter);
}
}
return Numbox;
}
Please suggest the correct way to do this. Thx!
You can't have everything. (As the sage says, "Where would you put it?" :-/ )
In this case, what you really can't have is entirely encapsulated data that prototype functions have access to. As elclanrs says, you're second example is fine if you're willing to forgo the privacy. On the other hand, if the privacy is more important than memory, you can do this instead:
define(function(){
function Numbox(){
var counter = 0;
this.add_and_show=function(){
counter++; alert(counter);
}
}
return Numbox;
}
Now counter is entirely private. But each Numbox instance has its own private copy of add_and_show. You can make your own decision about the tradeoff. But I've never seen any technique which allows you to achieve both.
If you really need this (tip, you probably don't), a way to do it is to keep track of instances and counters in the "private" scope, like so:
define(function(){
var counters = [];
var instances = [];
function Numbox() {
instances.push(this);
counters.push(0);
}
Numbox.prototype = {
addAndShow: function() {
var idx = instances.indexOf(this);
var counter = counters[idx]++;
return counter;
}
};
return Numbox;
});
var n = new Numbox();
console.log(n.addAndShow()); //=> 0
console.log(n.addAndShow()); //=> 1
console.log(n.addAndShow()); //=> 2
var n2 = new Numbox();
console.log(n2.addAndShow()); //=> 0
console.log(n2.addAndShow()); //=> 1
// More tests
console.log(n.addAndShow()); //=> 3
console.log(n2.addAndShow()); //=> 2
Ok, difficult to understand from the title only. Here is an example. I want a function to refer to a variable that is "injected" automagically, ie:
function abc() {
console.log(myVariable);
}
I have tried with:
with({myVariable: "value"}) { abc() }
but this doesn't work unless abc is declared within the with block, ie:
with({myVariable: "value"}) {
function abc() {
console.log(myVariable);
}
abc(); // This will work
}
So the last piece will work, but is it possible to fake the with statement, or do I have to force the developers to declare their function calls in a with statement?
Basically the call I want to do is:
doSomething({myVariable: "value"}, function() {
console.log(myVariable);
});
Ofcourse, I am aware I could pass this is a one parameter object, but that is not what I am trying to do:
doSomething({myVariable: "value"}, function(M) {
console.log(M.myVariable);
});
Further more, I am trying to avoid using eval:
with({myVariable: "value"}) {
eval(abc.toString())(); // Will also work
}
Is this not supported at at all beyond eval in Javascript?
JavaScript does not provide any straightforward way to achieve the syntax you're looking for. The only way to inject a variable into a Lexical Environment is by using eval (or the very similar Function constructor). Some of the answers to this question suggest this. Some other answers suggest using global variables as a workaround. Each of those solutions have their own caveats, though.
Other than that, your only option is to use a different syntax. The closest you can get to your original syntax is passing a parameter from doSomething to the callback, as Aadit M Shah suggested. Yes, I am aware you said you don't want to do that, but it's either that or an ugly hack...
Original answer (written when I didn't fully understand the question)
Maybe what you're looking for is a closure? Something like this:
var myVariable = "value";
function doSomething() {
console.log(myVariable);
};
doSomething(); // logs "value"
Or maybe this?
function createClosure(myVariable) {
return function() {
console.log(myVariable);
};
}
var closure = createClosure("value");
closure(); // logs "value"
Or even:
var closure = function(myVariable) {
return function() {
console.log(myVariable);
};
}("value");
closure(); // logs "value"
I asked a similar question a long time ago: Is it possible to achieve dynamic scoping in JavaScript without resorting to eval?
The short answer is no, you can't achieve dynamic scoping without resorting to eval. The long answer is, you don't need to.
JavaScript doesn't support dynamic scoping, but that's not an issue because you can make your free variables parameters of the function that they belong to.
In my humble opinion this is the best solution:
function doSomething(context, callback) {
callback(context);
}
doSomething({myVariable: "value"}, function(M) {
console.log(M.myVariable);
});
However since you don't want to write a formal parameter, the next best thing is to use this instead:
function doSomething(context, callback) {
callback.call(context);
}
doSomething({myVariable: "value"}, function() {
console.log(this.myVariable);
});
Another option would be to manipulate the formal parameter list of the program as follows:
function inject(func, properties) {
var args = [], params = [];
for (var property in properties) {
if (properties.hasOwnProperty(property)) {
args.push(properties[property]);
params.push(property);
}
}
return Function.apply(null, params.concat("return " + func.toString()))
.apply(null, args);
}
Now we can use this inject method to inject properties into a function as follows:
function doSomething(context, callback) {
var func = inject(callback, context);
func();
}
doSomething({myVariable: "value"}, function() {
console.log(myVariable);
});
See the demo: http://jsfiddle.net/sDKga/1/
Note: The inject function will create an entirely new function which will not have the same lexical scope as the original function. Hence functions with free variables and partially applied functions will not work as expected. Only use inject with normal functions.
The Function constructor is kind of like eval but it's much safer. Of course I would advise you to simply use a formal parameter or this instead. However the design decision is your choice.
Try:
function doSomething(vars, fun) {
for (var key in vars) { // set the variables in vars
window[key] = vars[key];
}
fun.call(); // call function
for (var key in vars) { // remove the variables again. this will allow only the function to use it
delete window[key];
}
}
Set global variables that can then be received inside of fun
The JSFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/shawn31313/MbAMQ/
Warning: disgusting code ahead
function callWithContext(func, context, args) {
var oldProperties = {};
for(var n in context) {
if(context.hasOwnProperty(n)) {
var oldProperty = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(self, n);
oldProperties[n] = oldProperty;
(function(n) {
Object.defineProperty(self, n, {
get: function() {
if(arguments.callee.caller === func) {
return context[n];
}
if(!oldProperty) {
return;
}
if(oldProperty.get) {
return oldProperty.get.apply(this, arguments);
}
return oldProperty.value;
},
set: function(value) {
if(arguments.callee.caller === func) {
context[n] = value;
}
if(!oldProperty) {
return;
}
if(oldProperty.set) {
return oldProperty.get.apply(this, arguments);
} else if(!oldProperty.writable) {
var fakeObject = {};
Object.defineProperty(fakeObject, n, {value: null, writable: false});
fakeObject[n] = value; // Kind of stupid, but…
return;
}
oldProperty.value = value;
}
});
})(n);
}
}
func.apply(this, args);
for(var n in context) {
if(context.hasOwnProperty(n)) {
if(oldProperties[n]) {
Object.defineProperty(self, n, oldProperties[n]);
} else {
delete self[n];
}
}
}
}
This is vomitously horrendous, by the way; don’t use it. But ew, it actually works.
i don't see why you can't just pass the info in or define a single global, but i think that would be best.
that said, i am working on a Module maker/runner that allows sloppy/dangerous code to execute without interference to the host environment. that provides the opportunity to re-define variables, which can be passed as an object.
this does use eval (Function() technically) but it can run in "use strict", so it's not too crazy/clever.
it doesn't leave behind artifacts.
it also won't let globals get hurt.
it's still a work in progress, and i need to iron out a couple minor details before i vouch for security, so don't use it for fort knox or anything, but it's working and stable enough to perform the operation asked for.
tested in ch28, FF22, IE10:
function Module(strCode, blnPreventExtensions, objWhitelist, objExtend) {
var __proto__=self.__proto__, pbu=self.__proto__, str=strCode, om=[].map, wasFN=false,
params = {Object:1}, fnScrubber, natives= [ Object, Array, RegExp, String, Boolean, Date] ,
nativeSlots = [],
preamble = "'use strict';" ,
inherited="__defineGetter__,__defineSetter__,__proto__,valueOf,constructor,__lookupGetter__,__lookupSetter__",
late = inherited +
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(__proto__||{}) + Object.getOwnPropertyNames(window);
late.split(",").sort().map(function(a) {
this[a] = 1;
}, params);
preamble+=";var "+inherited+";";
//turn functions into strings, but note that a function was passed
if(str.call){wasFN=true; str=String(str); delete params.Object; }
objExtend=objExtend||{};
var vals=Object.keys(objExtend).map(function(k){ return objExtend[k]; })
// build a usable clone of Object for all the new OOP methods it provides:
var fakeOb=Object.bind();
(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(Object)||Object.keys(Object)).map(function(a){
if(Object[a] && Object[a].bind){this[a]=Object[a].bind(Object); } return this;
},fakeOb)[0];
//allow "eval" and "arguments" since strict throws if you formalize them and eval is now presumed safe.
delete params.eval;
delete params.arguments;
params.hasOwnProperty=undefined;
params.toString=undefined;
params['__proto__']={};
__proto__=null;
Object.keys(objWhitelist||{}).map(function ripper(a,b){
b=this[a];
if(typeof b!=='object'){
delete this[a];
}
}, params);
// var ok=Object.keys.bind(Object);
// prevent new prototype methods from being added to native constructors:
if (blnPreventExtensions) {
natives.forEach(function(con, i) {
var proto=con.prototype;
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(proto).map(function(prop){
if(proto[prop] && proto[prop].bind ){ this[prop]=proto[prop];}
}, nativeSlots[i] = {});
delete con.constructor;
delete con.prototype.constructor;
}); //end con map()
} /* end if(blnPreventExtensions) */
//white-list harmless math utils and prevent hijacking:
delete params.Math;
if(blnPreventExtensions){Object.freeze(Math);}
//prevent literal constructors from getting Function ref (eg: [].constructor.constructor, /./.constructor.constructor, etc...):
Function.prototype.constructor = null;
try {
//generate a private wrapper function to evaluate code:
var response = Function(
Object.keys(objExtend) + (vals.length?",":"") +
Object.keys(params).filter(/./.test, /^[\w\$]+$/), // localize most globals
preamble + " return " + str.trim() // cram code into a function body with global-blocking formal parameters
);
// call it with a blank this object and only user-supplied arguments:
if (blnPreventExtensions) { //( user-land code must run inside here to be secure)
response = response.apply({}, vals.concat(fakeOb)).apply({}, [].slice.call(arguments,4) );
}else{
response = response.apply({}, vals.concat(fakeOb));
}
} catch (y) {
response = y + "!!";
} /* end try/catch */
if (blnPreventExtensions) {
om.call(natives, function(con, i) {
var pro=con.prototype;
//remove all proto methods for this con to censor any additions made by unsafe code:
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(pro).map(function(a){ try{delete pro[a];}catch(y){}});
//restore all original props from the backup:
var bu = nativeSlots[i];
om.call(Object.keys(bu), function(prop){ con.prototype[prop]=bu[prop]; }, bu);
}); //end con map()
} /* end if(blnPreventExtensions) */
//restore hidden Function constructor property:
Function.prototype.constructor = Function;
return response;
} /* end Module() */
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
function doSomething(context, fn){
console.log(myVariable);
return myVariable;
}
//use 1:
alert( Module(doSomething, true, {console:1}, {myVariable: "value123"} ) );// immed
//use2:
var fn=Module(doSomething, false, {console:1}, {myVariable: "value123"} );// as function
alert(fn);
alert(fn());
again, i think OP would be best off not doing things later than need be, but for the sake of comprehensiveness and inspiration i'm putting this out there in good faith.
You need to use call() to construct a context, as in:
var f=function(){
console.log(this.foo);
};
f.call({foo:'bar'})
will print "bar"
You can avoid using eval() in calling the function, if you are willing to use it in doSomething():
function abc() {
console.log(myVariable);
}
// Prints "value"
callWith({ myVariable: "value" }, abc);
function callWith(context, func) {
for(var i in context) eval('var ' + i + ' = context[i];');
eval('(' + func.toString() + ')')();
}
Have a look at this post.
Have a look at goog.partial, scroll a little bit up to see the description of what it does:
Here is an implementation of it:
var b = goog.partial(alert, 'Hello world!');
b();//alerts "Hello world!"
In the example it passes the function alert with parameter "Hello world!" but you can pass it your own function with multiple parameters.
This allows you to create a variable that points to a function that is always called with a certain paramater. To use parameters in a function that are not named you can use arguments:
function test(){
console.log(arguments);//["hello","world"]
}
test("hello","world");
In trying to make my Javascript unobtrusive, I'm using onLoads to add functionality to <input>s and such. With Dojo, this looks something like:
var coolInput = dojo.byId('cool_input');
if(coolInput) {
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
coolInput.onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
}
Or, approximately equivalently:
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
dojo.forEach(dojo.query('#cool_input'), function(elt) {
elt.onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
});
Has anyone written an implementation of Ruby's andand so that I could do the following?
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
// the input's onkeyup is set iff the input exists
dojo.byId('cool_input').andand().onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
or
dojo.byId('cool_input').andand(function(elt) {
// this function gets called with elt = the input iff it exists
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
elt.onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
});
I don't know Dojo, but shouldn't your first example read
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
var coolInput = dojo.byId('cool_input');
if(coolInput)
coolInput.onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
Otherwise, you might end up trying to access the element before the DOM has been built.
Back to your question: In JavaScript, I'd implement andand() as
function andand(obj, func, args) {
return obj && func.apply(obj, args || []);
}
Your example could then be written as
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
andand(dojo.byId('cool_input'), function() {
this.onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
});
which isn't really that much shorter than using the explicit if statement - so why bother?
The exact syntax you want is not possible in JavaScript. The way JavaScript executes would need to change in a pretty fundamental fashion. For example:
var name = getUserById(id).andand().name;
// ^
// |-------------------------------
// if getUserById returns null, execution MUST stop here |
// otherwise, you'll get a "null is not an object" exception
However, JavaScript doesn't work that way. It simply doesn't.
The following line performs almost exactly what you want.
var name = (var user = getUserById(id)) ? user.name : null;
But readability won't scale to larger examples. For example:
// this is what you want to see
var initial = getUserById(id).andand().name.andand()[0];
// this is the best that JavaScript can do
var initial = (var name = (var user = getUserById(id)) ? user.name : null) ? name[0] : null;
And there is the side-effect of those unnecessary variables. I use those variables to avoid the double lookup. The variables are mucking up the context, and if that's a huge deal, you can use anonymous functions:
var name = (function() {return (var user = getUserById(id)) ? user.name : null;})();
Now, the user variable is cleaned-up properly, and everybody's happy. But wow! what a lot of typing! :)
You want dojo.behavior.
dojo.behavior.add({
'#cool_input': {
onKeyUp: function(evt) { ... }
}
});
How about something like this:
function andand(elt, f) {
if (elt)
return f(elt);
return null;
}
Call like this:
andand(dojo.byId('cool_input'), function(elt) {
// this function gets called with elt = the input iff it exists
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
elt.onkeyup = function() { ... };
});
});
As far as I know there isn't a built-in JavaScript function that has that same functionality. I think the best solution though is to query by class instead of id and use dojo.forEach(...) as you will be guaranteed a non-null element in the forEach closure.
You could always use the JavaScript equivalent:
dojo.byId('cool_input') && dojo.byId('cool_input').whateverYouWantToDo(...);
I've never used dojo, but most javascript frameworks (when dealing with the DOM) return the calling element when a method is called from the element object (poor wording, sorry). So andand() would be implicit.
dojo.addOnLoad(function() {
dojo.byId('cool_input').onkeyup(function(evt) { /*event handler code*/
});
});
For a list:
Array.prototype.andand = function(property, fn) {
if (this.filter(property).length > 0) this.map(fn);
}