We Keep Coding

How do I toggle a class within a loop between a table row and map points?

I have 10 rows in a table that contains the address of each tag on a map. I am trying to add a click event to each tag on the map to it's corresponding table row. Instead of writing each click event separately I'm attempting to do it through a for loop. What's the best way to do this? The for loop below works for only the last iteration but not for all.
for (var i=0; i < 10; i++) {
var maptag = "#maptag";
var maprow = "#maprow";
$(maptag + +i).click(function() {
console.log('in the hole!');
$(maprow + +i).toggleClass('highlight');
return false;
});

You may need a closure
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
var maptag = "#maptag";
var maprow = "#maprow";
(function(x) { // IIFE
$(maptag + +x).click(function() {
console.log('in the hole!');
$(maprow + +x).toggleClass('highlight');
return false;
})
}(i))
}

Your problem is scoping. What's happening is when you create your click event, i is the current value in the loop. However, when the click even is triggered, that i is set to the state it was at the end of the loop (i.e., your last one).
What you need to do is wrap it in a function to affect the scope. Something like this:
for (var i=0; i < 10; i++) {
var maptag = "#maptag";
var maprow = "#maprow";
$(maptag + i).click((function (i) { return function() {
console.log('in the hole!');
$(maprow + i).toggleClass('highlight');
})(i));
}
This looks a little weird, but what you're doing is wrapping the function that'll actually trigger in another function, which is self-calling:
(function (i) {
// will trigger immediately
}(i);
You pass in your i there, but then the function inside which is returned uses an i which is actually a different variable. The inner i doesn't change when the loop changes, so it'll have the value you expect when the click is actually triggered.
P.S., never seen variableName + +i before. Not sure if that was a typo, or some special syntax I'm unaware of, but if it is, it'd seem unnecessary here. Your return false is also unnecessary, as without it, it'll implicitly return null which is also a falsey value (unless you're explicitly checking for false somewhere with an ===).

parameter error with addEventListener

Okey so I got this following javaScript code.
function test(id)
{
alert(id);
}
var elem = document.getElementsByClassName('outsideDiv');
for(var i=0; i < elem.length; i++)
{
elem[i].addEventListener('mouseover', function(){test(i);}, false);
}
this gives all divs with the class a mouse over but the function always returns the latest i index. in this case i got 5 div elements and the alert is allways 5 no mather witch one i hover. Can anyone explain why?

Try using this instead:
function mouseOverFunc(i) {
return function () {
test(i);
};
}
function test(id) {
alert(id);
}
var elem = document.getElementsByClassName('outsideDiv');
for(var i=0; i < elem.length; i++) {
elem[i].addEventListener('mouseover', mouseOverFunc(i), false);
}
Just because you add event listeners to the elements doesn't mean the value of i is preserved for each listener. You need to create a closure that will create a new scope with i.
The reason this is happening is because the function bound to each listener is just a reference. When the event happens (mouseover), the function is finally called, but what's the value of i? The for loop finished executing a long time ago, so the value of i is the end value - 5.

Wrong Parameter is passed to function

I have the following code that adds an onmouseover event to a bullet onload
for (var i = 0; i <= 3; i++) {
document.getElementById('menu').getElementsByTagName('li')[i].onmouseover = function () { addBarOnHover(i); };
}
This is the function that it is calling. It is supposed to add a css class to the menu item as the mouse goes over it.
function addBarOnHover(node) {
document.getElementById('menu').getElementsByTagName('li')[node].className = "current_page_item"; }
When the function is called, I keep getting the error:
"document.getElementById("menu").getElementsByTagName("li")[node] is
undefined"
The thing that is stumping me is I added an alert(node) statement to the addBarOnHover function to see what the value of the parameter was. The alert said the value of the parameter being passed was 4. I'm not sure how this could happen with the loop I have set up.
Any help would be much appreciated.

This is a common problem when you close over an iteration variable. Wrap the for body in an extra method to capture the value of the iteration variable:
for (var i = 0; i <= 3; i++) {
(function(i){ //here
document.getElementById('menu').getElementsByTagName('li')[i].onmouseover = function () { addBarOnHover(i); };
})(i); //here
}
an anonymous function is created each time the loop is entered, and it is passed the current value of the iteration variable. i inside the anonymous function refers to the argument of this function, rather than the i in the outer scope.
You could also rename the inner variable for clarity:
for(var i=0; i<=3; i++){
(function(ii){
//use ii as i
})(i)
}
Without capturing the iteration variable, the value of i when it is finally used in the anonymous handler has been already changed to 4. There's only one i in the outer scope, shared between all instances of the handler. If you capture the value by an anonymous function, then the argument to that function is used instead.

i is being passed as a reference (not by value), so once the onmouseover callback is called, the value of i has already become 4.
You'll have to create your callback function using another function:
var menu = document.getElementById('menu');
var items = menu.getElementsByTagName('li');
for (var i = 0; i <= 3; i++) {
items[i].onmouseover = (function(i) {
return function() {
addBarOnHover(i);
};
})(i);
}
You could make it a little more readable by making a helper function:
var createCallback = function(i) {
return function() {
addBarOnHover(i);
};
};
for (var i = 0; i <= 3; i++) {
items[i].onmouseover = createCallback(i);
}

Javascript,Setting up onclick method syntax

I am looking at a javascript code that manipulates an HTML A tag , and I'm having trouble understanding how it sets up the "onclick" property. It seems to be telling it to update ytplayer_playitem with the index variable j and then call ytplayer_playlazy(1000)
But what's up with all the parentheses? What details in the javascript syntax allows it to be setup like this?
var a = document.createElement("a");
a.href = "#ytplayer";
a.onclick = (function (j) {
return function () {
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
})(i);

Well, basically, the value of onclick is a function that will get called when the element is clicked. Whatever you want to happen when the user clicks the element goes in the body of the function.
You could create a named function and then assign it to the element's onclick attribute:
function youClickedMe() {
...
}
a.onclick = youClickedMe
but that clutters up the namespace with a function name that is never referenced anywhere else. It's cleaner to create an anonymous function right where you need it. Normally, that would look like this:
a.onclick = function() { ... }
But if we try that with your specific example:
a.onclick = function() {
ytplayer_playitem = something; // ??
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
}
We see that it hard-codes the something that gets played. I'm assuming the original code was taken from a loop which generates several clickable links to play; with the code just above, all of those links would play the same thing, which is probably not what you want.
So far, so straightforward, but this next leap is where it gets tricky. The solution seems obvious: if you're in a loop, why not just use the loop variable inside the function body?
// THIS DOESN'T WORK
a.onclick = function() {
ytplayer_playitem = i;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
}
That looks like it should work, but unfortunately the i inside the function refers to the value of the variable i when the function is called, not when it's created. By the time the user clicks on the link, the loop that created all the links will be done and i will have its final value - probably either the last item in the list or one greater than that item's index, depending on how the loop is written. Whatever its value is, you once again have the situation where all links play the same item.
The solution in your code gets a little meta, by using a function whose return value is another function. If you pass the loop control variable to the generating function as an argument, the new function it creates can reference that parameter and always get the value that was originally passed in, no matter what has happened to the value of the outer argument variable since:
function generate_onclick(j) {
// no matter when the returned function is called, its "j" will be
// the value passed into this call of "generate_onclick"
return function() { ytplayer_playitem = j; ytplayer_playlazy(1000); }
}
To use that, call it inside the loop like this:
a.onclick = generate_onclick(i);
Each generated function gets its very own j variable, which keeps its value forever instead of changing when i does. So each link plays the right thing; mission accomplished!
That's exactly what your posted original code is doing, with one small difference: just like the first step in my explanation, the author chose to use an anonymous function instead of defining a named one. The other difference here is that they are also calling that anonymous function immediately after defining it. This code:
a.onclick = (function (j) { ... })(i)
is the anonymous version of this code:
function gen(j) { ... }
a.onclick = gen(i)
The extra parens around the anonymous version are needed because of JavaScript's semicolon-insertion rules; function (y) {...}(blah) compiles as a standalone function definition followed by a standalone expression in parentheses, rather than a function call.

"But what's up with all the parentheses? "
Most of the parentheses are just doing what you'd expect.
There's an extra set that isn't technically needed, but is often used as a hint that the function is being invoked.
// v-v---these are part of the function definition like normal
a.onclick = (function (j) {
// ^-----------this and...v
return function () {
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
// v---...this are technically not needed here, but are used as a hint
})(i);
// ^-^---these invoked the function like normal
"What details in the javascript syntax allows it to be setup like this?"
The upshot is that the function is invoked immediately, and passed i so that its value is referenced by the j parameter in the immediately invoked function.
This creates a variable scope that the returned function will continue to have access to. This way it always has access to the j variable, and not the i that gets overwritten in the loop.
These inlined functions are abused a bit IMO. It becomes clearer if you simply make it a named function.
for(var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
// create the new element
a.onclick = createHandler(i);
// append it somewhere
}
function createHandler (j) {
return function () {
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
}
The resulting handler is exactly the same, but the code is much less cryptic.

Right, I'm going to guess that the surrounding code looks like this:
for (var i = 0; i < playitems.length; i++) {
// above code here
}
Now, you could do the obvious thing here, and assign the onclick property like this:
a.onclick = function() {
ytplayer_playitem = i;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
However that wouldn't work very well, because the value of i changes. Whichever link was clicked, the last one would be the one activated, because the value of i at that point would be the last one in the list.
So you need to prevent this happening. You need to do this by creating a new scope, which is done by creating an extra function, which is immediately invoked:
(function (j) {
// some code here
})(i);
Because i has been passed into the function, the value is passed rather than a reference to the variable being kept. This means that you can now define a function which will have a reference to the correct value. So you get your extra function to return the click handling function:
a.onclick = (function (j) { // j is the right number and always will be
return function () { // this function is the click handler
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
})(i);
So each a element has its own click handler function, each of which has its own individual j variable, which is the correct number. So the links, when clicked, will perform the function you want them to.

a.onclick = (function (j) {
return function () {
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
})(i);
This creates a "closure" to ensure that the value of i that is bound to the handler is the value of i "at that time" and not i in the general.
In your code, the function inside the () is an expression, executed and passed the variable i. This is the (i) you see in the end part. In this executed function expression, the i becomes the local variable j. This executed function expression returns the handler function that is to be bound the onclick event carrying the value of j which was i "at that time"
if i did not use the closure:
//suppose i is 1
var i = 1;
a.onclick = function () {
ytplayer_playitem = i;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
//and changed i
i = 2;
//if you clicked the <a>, it would not be 1 onclick but 2 because you
//did not assign the value of i "at that time". i is "tangible" this way

a.onclick = (function (j) {
return function () {
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy(1000);
};
})(i);
What you have here is a self-invoking anonymous function. Let's break it down, first replacing the body of the function with something simpler (return j + 1;):
function( j ) { return j + 1; }
This s a run-of-the-mill anonymous function or closure. This line of code is an expression, and so it has a value, and that value is a function. Now we could do this:
var foo = function( j ) { return j + 1; }
foo( 5 ); // => 6
You recognize this, I'm sure—we're assigning the anonymous function to the variable foo, and then calling the function by name with the argument i. But, instead of creating a new variable, because the closure is an expression we can call it like this instead:
( function( j ) { return j + 1; } )( 5 ); // => 6
Same result. Now, it's just returning j + 1 but in your code it returns something else: Another anonymous function:
return function() { /* ... */ }
What happens when we have a self-invoking anonymous function that returns a function? The result is the "inner" function that was returned:
a.onclick = ( function( j ) {
return function() {
ytplayer_playitem = j;
ytplayer_playlazy( 1000 );
}
}
)( i );
If i was equal to 9 then a.onclick would now hold a function equivalent to this:
function() {
ytplayer_playitem = 9;
ytplayer_playlazy( 1000 );
}
As others have pointed out, the usefulness of this is that when ( function( j ) { /* ... */ } )( i ) is invoked you are capturing the value of i at that time and putting it into j rather than creating a reference to the value i holds, which may (and probably will) change later on.

javascript closures in loops

//I have the following function:
function handle_message(msg)
{
//do work
console.log('some work: '+msg.val);
//call next message
msg.next();
}
//And array of message objects:
var msgs = [ {val : 'first msg'}, { val : 'second msg'}, { val : 'third msg'}];
//I link messages by setting next parameter in a way that it calls handle_message for the next msg in the list. Last one displays alert message.
msgs[2].next = function() {alert('done!')};
msgs[1].next = function() {handle_message(msgs[2]);};
msgs[0].next = function() {handle_message(msgs[1]);};
//Start the message handle "chain". It works!
handle_message(msgs[0]);
//======== Now I do exactly the same thing but I link messages using the for loop:
for (var i=msgs.length-1; i>=0; i--)
{
if (i==msgs.length-1)
{
msgs[i].next = function() {alert('done!');};
}
else
{
msgs[i].next = function() {handle_message(msgs[i+1]);};
}
}
//Start the message handling chain. It fails! It goes into infinite recursion (second message calls itself)
handle_message(msgs[0]);
Can sombody explain why it happens? Or maybe an alternative to this pattern? My case is this: I receive an array with messages and I have to handle them in order, one ofter another SYNCHRONOUSLY. The problem is some of the messages require firing a series of animations (jqwuery animate() which is async) and the following messages cannot be handled until the last animation is finished. Since there is no sleep() in javascript I was trying to use such pattern where the message calls the next one after it is finished (in case of animations I simply pass the 'next' function pointer to animate's "complete" callback). Anyway, I wanted to build this 'chain' dynamically but discovered this strange (?) behaviour.

You need a closure to make it work:
function handle_message( msg ) {
console.log( 'some work: ' + msg.val );
msg.next();
}
var msgs = [{val :'first msg'},{val:'second msg'},{val:'third msg'}];
for ( var i = msgs.length - 1; i >= 0; i-- ) {
(function(i) {
if ( i == msgs.length - 1 ) {
msgs[i].next = function() { alert( 'done!' ); };
} else {
msgs[i].next = function() { handle_message( msgs[i + 1] ); };
}
})(i);
}
handle_message( msgs[0] );
Live demo: http://jsfiddle.net/simevidas/3CDdn/
Explanation:
The problem is with this function expression:
function() { handle_message( msgs[i + 1] ); }
This function has a live reference to the i variable. When this function is called, the for loop has long ended and the value of i is -1. If you want to capture the current value of i (the value during the iteration), you need to an additional wrapper function. This function captures the current value of i permanently (as an argument).

I think the problem is that i doesn't have the value you think it has:
// i is defined here:
for (var i=msgs.length-1; i>=0; i--)
{
if (i==msgs.length-1)
{
msgs[i].next = function() {alert('done!');};
}
else
{
msgs[i].next = function() {
// when this line gets executed, the outer loop is long finished
// thus i equals -1
handle_message(msgs[i+1]);
};
}
}
See point #5 Closures in loops at http://blog.tuenti.com/dev/top-13-javascript-mistakes/

Think about the values you are capturing in the closure.
msgs[i].next = function() {handle_message(msgs[i+1]);};
This captures the value of i, but it changes the next iteration so you get an infinite loop.
By the end of the loop i is -1 so i+1 is going just going to be the same message over and over again.