var f = function() {
this.m = '10' ;
f1 = function(){
alert(m)
}
}
o = new f()
o.m
f1()
Is this the right way to call nested function f1 from the above example
I am assuming you wanted f1 to be a method of f, in which case you need to add it as a property (as you've done for m):
var f = function() {
this.m = '10';
this.f1 = function(){
alert(this.m); //Notice that this has changed to `this.m`
};
}; //Function expressions should be terminated with a semicolon
You can then call the method on an instance of f:
o = new f();
o.f1(); //Alerts '10'
Here's a working example.
The way you have it currently will result in f1 leaking into the global scope (since it's declared without the var statement).
Side note: it's usually preferrable to make your methods properties of the prototype. This results in a single copy of the function in memory, instead of a copy for each instance:
var f = function() {
this.m = '10';
};
f.prototype.f1 = function() {
alert(this.m);
};
With your code, the function is an inner function and not callable from the outside. If you call it inside a constructor, you have to assign f1 to the object:
this.f1 = function() {
alert(m);
}
Then you can call:
o = new f()
o.f1() //=> alerts 10
Related
Can anyone explain to me why "b" returns undefined and how I can get around this problem? Why does the "this" scope get lost when I call prototype functions by reference?
MyClass = function(test) {
this.test = test;
}
MyClass.prototype.myfunc = function() {
return this.test;
}
var a = new MyClass('asd').myfunc();
var b = new MyClass('asd').myfunc;
// Returns "asd" correctly
console.log(a)
// Returns undefined??
console.log(b())
=== EDIT / SOLUTION ===
As plalx writes, the correct solution in my case is to use .bind(). So the result looks like this:
MyClass = function(test) {
this.test = test;
}
MyClass.prototype.myfunc = function() {
return this.test;
}
var a = new MyClass('asd').myfunc();
var b = new MyClass('asd'),
bfunc = b.myfunc.bind(b)
// Returns "asd" correctly
console.log(a)
// Also returns "asd" correctly!
console.log(bfunc())
You need to explicitely bind the this value if you want this behaviour.
var c = new MyClass('asd'),
b = c.myfunc.bind(c);
console.log(b());
By default, this will point to the leftSide.ofTheDot(); in an invocation, or simply the object on which the function was called.
Note: Calling b(); is the same as window.b();.
Binding every function to the object instance is possible but rather inefficient because functions will not get shared across instances anymore.
E.g.
function MyClass(someVal) {
var me = this;
me.someVal = someVal;
me.someFn = function () {
return me.someVal;
};
}
The line var b... is a function reference and you're not actually calling the function.
Here you are assigning to a variable a result of myfunc() function.
var a = new MyClass('asd').myfunc();
And here, you are asigning to b variable function reference, rather then runing it, and assign result to variable.
var b = new MyClass('asd').myfunc;
And finaly here:
console.log(b())
You trying to log result of function b and in that case b() isn't defined anywhere, only it is assigned reference to function.
Try this:
console.log(b); // It logs [Function]
But besides that, your question is hard to understand.
P.S. Use semicolons!
I have the following code with and without a module pattern. I have given the results right next to the execution. In the module pattern, I am able to change foo and set_inner, while in the function object (non-module), I can't change foo and set_inner.
module pattern:
var someObj = (function () {
var instance = {},
inner = 'some value';
instance.foo = 'blah';
instance.get_inner = function () {
return inner; };
instance.set_inner = function (s) {
inner = s; };
return instance; })();
someObj.get_inner();//some value
someObj.set_inner("kkkk");
someObj.get_inner();//kkk
someObj.foo;//blah
someObj.foo="ddd";
someObj.foo;//ddd
non-module:
var someObj = function () {
var instance = {},
inner = 'some value';
instance.foo = 'blah';
instance.get_inner = function () {
return inner; };
instance.set_inner = function (s) {
inner = s; };
return instance; };
someObj().get_inner();//some value
someObj().foo;//blah
someObj.foo="aaa";
someObj().foo;//blah
someObj().set_inner("kkk");
someObj().get_inner();//some value
Any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
Your "module" example creates a single object, referred to by instance. The anonymous function is immediately invoked, and returns that object. So someObj refers to instance.
Your "non-module" example creates a new object each time you invoke it. The anonymous function is not immediately invoked. Instead, it has to be called every time you want to use it.
It would behave the same way if you assigned the return value to a variable and referred to that, instead of repeatedly invoking someObj:
var obj = someObj();
obj.get_inner(); //some value
obj.foo; //blah
obj.foo="aaa";
obj.foo; //aaa
//etc...
When I use var keyword to declare any variable it gets declared inside the enclosing scope. However in the code below, I have declared function c (inside an object method a.b) with var keyword and still this inside the function c is bound to the global object window. Why is this?
var a = {
b: function () {
var c = function () {
return this;
};
return c();
}
};
document.write(a.b()); //prints: [object Window]
The value of this is determined by context, not scope.
When you call a function without any context (context.func()) as you do there (c()), the default context is the default object (which is window in browsers) unless you are in strict mode (in which case it is undefined instead).
(There are exceptions to this rule, such as apply, call, bind, and new but none of them apply here).
Many people get confused by this. The value this depends on one of 4 methods of invocation.
However, functional invocation and method-invocation cause most of the confusion.
If a function is a member of an object, this is the object itself.
obj.someFunction(); //method invocation
If a function is called without context this is the global object (in 'strict mode' this is undefined.)
someFunction(); //functional invocation
The confusion occurs when a function is called within an object, but not as a member of the object as in anObject.testWithHelper(..);
var testForThis = function(isThis, message) {
//this can be confusing
if(this === isThis)
console.log("this is " + message);
else
console.log("this is NOT " + message);
};
//functional invocation
testForThis(this, "global"); //this is global
var anObject = {
test: testForThis, //I am a method
testWithHelper: function(isThis, message) {
//functional invocation
testForThis(isThis, message + " from helper");
}
};
//method invocation
anObject.test(anObject, "anObject"); //this is anObject
//method invocation followed by functional invocation
anObject.testWithHelper(anObject, "an object"); //this is NOT anObject from helper
Here is my JSFIDDLE
If you would like c to return a, you can use closure:
var a = {
b: function () {
var that = this;
var c = function () {
return that;
};
return c();
}
};
Or avoid this all together:
var getNewA = function() {
var newA = {};
newA.b = function() {
var c = function() {
return newA;
};
return c();
};
return newA;
};
var newA = getNewA();
Is it possible to have a self executing function which is an objects property value assign values to other properties in the object?
e.g. - what I would like to do is this:
var b={
c:'hi',
d:null,
e:new function(){this.d=5}
};
But the "this" inside the new function seems to refer to b.e. Is it possible to access the b.e parent (i.e. b) from inside the function?
This is how you do it.
Often called the module pattern (more info)
var b = function () {
var c = 'hi';
var d = null;
return {
c : c,
d : d,
e : function () {
// this function can access the var d in the closure.
d = 5;
}
}
}();
You can access the value within the function, you just need to get rid of the new, i.e.
e: function () {
this.d = 5;
}
Is it possible to somehow pass the scope of a function to another?
For example,
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {..};
b(<my-scope>);
}
function b(){
//access x or obj....
}
I would rather access the variables directly, i.e., not using anything like this.a or this.obj, but just use x or obj directly.
The only way to truly get access to function a's private scope is to declare b inside of a so it forms a closure that allows implicit access to a's variables.
Here are some options for you.
Direct Access
Declare b inside of a.
function a() {
var x = 5,
obj = {};
function b(){
// access x or obj...
}
b();
}
a();
If you don't want b inside of a, then you could have them both inside a larger container scope:
function container() {
var x, obj;
function a(){
x = 5;
obj = {..};
b();
}
function b(){
// access x or obj...
}
}
container.a();
These are the only ways you're going to be able to use a's variables directly in b without some extra code to move things around. If you are content with a little bit of "help" and/or indirection, here are a few more ideas.
Indirect Access
You can just pass the variables as parameters, but won't have write access except to properties of objects:
function a() {
var x = 5,
obj = {};
b(x, obj);
}
function b(x, obj){
// access x or obj...
// changing x here won't change x in a, but you can modify properties of obj
}
a();
As a variation on this you could get write access by passing updated values back to a like so:
// in a:
var ret = b(x, obj);
x = ret.x;
obj = ret.obj;
// in b:
return {x : x, obj : obj};
You could pass b an object with getters and setters that can access a's private variables:
function a(){
var x = 5,
obj = {..},
translator = {
getX : function() {return x;},
setX : function(value) {x = value;},
getObj : function() {return obj;},
setObj : function(value) {obj = value;}
};
b(translator);
}
function b(t){
var x = t.getX(),
obj = t.getObj();
// use x or obj...
t.setX(x);
t.setObj(obj);
// or you can just directly modify obj's properties:
obj.key = value;
}
a();
The getters and setters could be public, assigned to the this object of a, but this way they are only accessible if explicitly given out from within a.
And you could put your variables in an object and pass the object around:
function a(){
var v = {
x : 5,
obj : {}
};
b(v);
}
function b(v){
// access v.x or v.obj...
// or set new local x and obj variables to these and use them.
}
a();
As a variation you can construct the object at call time instead:
function a(){
var x = 5,
obj = {};
b({x : x, obj: obj});
}
function b(v){
// access v.x or v.obj...
// or set new local x and obj variables to these and use them.
}
a();
Scope is created by functions, and a scope stays with a function, so the closest thing to what you're asking will be to pass a function out of a() to b(), and that function will continue to have access to the scoped variables from a().
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {..};
b(function() { /* this can access var x and var obj */ });
}
function b( fn ){
fn(); // the function passed still has access to the variables from a()
}
While b() doesn't have direct access to the variables that the function passed does, data types where a reference is passed, like an Object, can be accessed if the function passed returns that object.
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {..};
b(function() { x++; return obj; });
}
function b( fn ){
var obj = fn();
obj.some_prop = 'some value'; // This new property will be updated in the
// same obj referenced in a()
}
what about using bind
function funcA(param) {
var bscoped = funcB.bind(this);
bscoped(param1,param2...)
}
No.
You're accessing the local scope object. The [[Context]].
You cannot publicly access it.
Now since it's node.js you should be able to write a C++ plugin that gives you access to the [[Context]] object. I highly recommend against this as it brings proprietary extensions to the JavaScript language.
You can't "pass the scope"... not that I know of.
You can pass the object that the function is referring to by using apply or call and send the current object (this) as the first parameter instead of just calling the function:
function b(){
alert(this.x);
}
function a(){
this.x = 2;
b.call(this);
}
The only way for a function to access a certain scope is to be declared in that scope.
Kind'a tricky.
That would lead to something like :
function a(){
var x = 1;
function b(){
alert(x);
}
}
But that would kind of defeat the purpose.
As others have said, you cannot pass scope like that. You can however scope variables properly using self executing anonymous functions (or immediately executing if you're pedantic):
(function(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {x:x};
module.a = function(){
module.b();
};
module.b = function(){
alert(obj.x);
};
}());
a();
I think the simplest thing you can do is pass variables from one scope to a function outside that scope. If you pass by reference (like Objects), b has 'access' to it (see obj.someprop in the following):
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {someprop : 1};
b(x, obj);
alert(x); => 5
alert(obj.someprop); //=> 'otherval'
}
function b(aa,obj){
x += 1; //won't affect x in function a, because x is passed by value
obj.someprop = 'otherval'; //change obj in function a, is passed by reference
}
You can really only do this with eval. The following will give function b function a's scope
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {x};
eval('('+b.toString()+'())');
}
function b(){
//access x or obj....
console.log(x);
}
a(); //5
function a(){
this.x = 5;
this.obj = {..};
var self = this;
b(self);
}
function b(scope){
//access x or obj....
}
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {..};
var b = function()
{
document.println(x);
}
b.call();
}
Have you tried something like this:
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {..};
b(this);
}
function b(fnA){
//access x or obj....
fnA.obj = 6;
}
If you can stand function B as a method function A then do this:
function a(){
var x = 5;
var obj = {..};
b(this);
this.b = function (){
// "this" keyword is still === function a
}
}