We Keep Coding

Defining a method to determine the local variable name of an associated instance

Let’s say I have this function:
function myFunction(x,y,z) {
this.var1 = x*y;
this.var2 = "someting else";
};
myFunction.prototype.whatismyname = function() {
// return my name here.
};
var varName = new myFunction(10,99,7);
I would like to call varName.whatismyname(); and have it return the text
"varName", or whatever the name of the declared variable is. That is, can I have a method that will give me the name used to declare an instance variable?

This isn't practically possible. Local variable names are not preserved in any semantic way in JavaScript; the language has no reflection capabilities that would let you retrieve them. It might be hypothetically possible to have a program in the right environment connect to its own debugger port to determine a local variable name, but that would extremely complicated and slow.
But as a fun exercise, here's a function which will work for the specific example you've provided. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS FUNCTION IN REAL CODE. This code checks the name of your class (this.constructor.name), and then searches up the call stack for any parent functions containing X = new NAME, and returns the first X it finds. This approach is extremely crude and unreliable, relies on the super-deprecated .caller property, will probably hurt your application performance, won't work in strict mode, and your coworkers will give you dirty looks.
function myFunction(x,y,z) {
this.var1 = x*y;
this.var2 = "someting else";
};
myFunction.prototype.whatismyname = function() {
// Get the name of this class's constructor.
var name = this.constructor.name;
// Start by searching in the function calling this method.
var caller = arguments.callee.caller;
var match = null;
// Search up the call stack until we find a match or give up.
while (!match && caller) {
// Get the source code of this function on the stack.
var code = caller.toString();
// Search the source code for X = new NAME.
var match = new RegExp('\\W(\\w+)\\s*=\\s*new\\s+' + name).exec(code);
// Move up the stack.
caller = caller.caller;
}
// Return the first match.
return match && match[1] || undefined;
};
function main() {
var varName = new myFunction(10,99,7);
other(varName);
}
function other(myObj) {
console.log(myObj.whatismyname()); // "varName"
}
main();
It "works"! Sort-of. In this case. Don't do it.

Javascript, getting away from 'this' and using local scope

In a typical js class, all calls to member functions must be preceded by this. I was looking at a technique that would let me create a library of inter-dependent STATIC functions and relying on closure/scope to make things a bit easier.
Example:
var Singleton={
//main entry point
// call with fn name, args...
call:function(){
var args=[];
if (arguments.length==0) {
return;
}
// get the fn name
var fn=arguments[0];
var x;
// make args array
for (x=1;x<arguments.length;x++) {
args[args.length]=arguments[x];
}
// I want to get rid of this part
// See below for what I wish
// Here I have access to fns below due to hoisting in js
// so I put them in a map...
var fns={
test:test
// etc, more like this I do not want to type/maintain
}
// ... all so I can do this
// get my function.
var fun=fns[fn];
// instead of that, I would like to "override whitespace" and
// say something like:
// var fun=['fn_name'];
// so I can index into local scope and get a fn
//
// log error if not found
if (typeof fun=='undefined') {
loge('Singleton: function not found:'+fn);
return;
}
// ok, run the function
return fun.apply(window,args);
// the test fn accesses test2() without dot notation
function test(a){
// Note: here in test fn it can access test2()
// without using this.test2() syntax
// as you would in normal objects
var s=test2();
alert(s+' test:'+a);
};
function test2(){
return 'test2';
};
}
}
I was hoping someone more familiar with advances in javascript might have advice on how to emulate an "implied but unnecessary this", it always struck me as strange that this defaults to window, and wouldn't it be nice if this could be pointed to an anonymous object with the local scope attached.
I would love to say ['localObject'] to get something in scope.
Edit:
After seeing some of the responses, I will restate this in the form of a challenge:
What I am looking for is a syntax cheat, a way to, as #Varuna put it, "1. Access static methods without using this variable i.e. they will remain global to one another. 2. Do not want to maintain a local array for static methods and want to achieve with in the local scope itself."
Put differently, I need to have the declared functions Register themselves, but I don't want to state the function name more than once. I suppose #Varuna has a solution using eval to access the local scope.
The following approach wont work:
var o={};
o['fn']=function fn(){};
o['fn2']=function fn2(){};
...because you have to state the fn name twice, but closure is preserved.
And this:
var a=[
function fn(){}
,function fn2(){}
];
Register(a);
Will not work because, AFAIK, you lose closure, ie. fn2 cannot see fn. Which also makes the following declarative style a "this nightmare":
window.MINE={
fn:function fn(){
//this?
// want to say fn2(), not this.fn2(), nor MINE.fn2()
}
,fn2:function fn2(){
//this?
}
,deeper:{
//more
}
};
But something like this might work, if you created a weird property that does the registration on assignment:
var registar=new Registar();
registar.reg=function fn(){};
registar.reg=function fn2(){};
//then access
var fn=registar.getFn(n);
// or
var fn=registar._[n];
The above relies on js properties and having access to fn.name, which is not available in all cases AFAIK.

If I understand correctly, you want to create objects that:
have static members
... which can be accessed without using the this notation
The easiest solution (assuming I've properly understood your query), would be to simply use a closure to store your stratic fields, access them directly by name, then explicitly add them as object members.
Consider:
var myConstructor = (function(){
var foo = 'someStaticField';
var bar = function(){
alert('A static method returns ' + foo);
};
return function(){
return {
foo : foo,
bar : bar
};
};
})();
var myInstance = new myConstructor();

As per my understanding, you want to:
1. Access static methods without using this variable i.e. they will remain global to one another.
2. Do not want to maintain a local array for static methods and want to achieve with in the local scope itself.
You can check whether a method exist using eval.Check Here
Only drawback is that this will be using eval method.
Code will be:
var Singleton = {
//main entry point
// call with fn name, args...
call: function () {
var args = [];
if (arguments.length == 0) {
return;
}
// get the fn name
var fn = arguments[0];
var x;
// make args array
for (x = 1; x < arguments.length; x++) {
args[args.length] = arguments[x];
}
//check whether function exist in local scope and not in global scope
if (typeof eval(fn) !== 'undefined' && typeof window[fn] === 'undefined') {
// ok, run the function
return eval(fn).apply(window, args);
}
else{
// log error if not found
loge('Singleton: function not found:' + fn);
return;
}
// the test fn accesses test2() without dot notation
function test(a) {
// Note: here in test fn it can access test2()
// without using this.test2() syntax
// as you would in normal objects
var s = test2();
alert(s + ' test:' + a);
};
function test2() {
return 'test2';
};
}
}

How about declaring functions that can access each other in separate closure, and exporting them to main method by binding your call method to an object containing the functions? Something like previous post (modified slightly):
var Singleton = {
call: (function() {
// here 'call' is bound to object containig your test functions
// this: {test, test2}
if (0 == arguments.length) return;
// log error if not found
if ('function' != typeof this[arguments[0]]) {
console.warn('Singleton: function not found:' + arguments[0]);
return;
}
// '...index into local scope and get function
// ie. get the function by it's name
return this[arguments[0]].
apply(window, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
// --- or:
// you can explicitly introduce function names to current scope,
// by `eval`-ing them here (not very much preferred way in JavaScript world):
for (var fname in this)
if (this.hasOwnProperty(fname))
eval('var ' + fname + ' = ' + this[fname]);
// and you can reference them directly by using their names
var fn = eval(arguments[0]);
return fn.apply(window, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
}).bind(
(function() {
var _exports = {};
function test (a) {
var s = test2();
alert(s + ' test: ' + a);
}
function test2 () {
return 'test2';
}
_exports['test'] = test;
_exports['test2'] = test2;
return _exports;
})()
)};
Singleton.call('test', 'foo and stuff');
//
previous post:
You are talking about Function#bind functionality that enables 'customizing' function's context. .bind() your call method to required 'local context' like this:
var Singleton = {
//main entry point
// call with fn name, args...
call: (function() {
// here `this` (context) is object bound to `call` method
// not `global` object, which is default for 'unbound' functions
var locals = this; // {fns, shift, loge, isfunc}
var fn;
var fun;
var x;
if (arguments.length == 0)
return;
// get the fn name
fn = locals.shift(arguments);
// '...index into local scope and get a fn'
fun = locals.fns[fn];
// log error if not found
if (!locals.isfunc(fun)) {
locals.loge('Singleton: function not found:' + fn);
return;
}
// ok, run the function
return fun.apply(window, arguments);
// lock `call`'s context to provided object
// and use `this` to reference it inside `call`
}).bind({
fns: (function(_) {
// and you can '...create a library of inter-dependent STATIC functions'
// in this closure and invoke them in `call` method above
_.test = function (a) {
var s = _.test2();
alert(s + ' test: ' + a);
};
_.test2 = function() {
return 'test2';
};
return _;
})({}),
// and create couple of helper methods as well...
isfunc: (function(_getclass) {
_getclass.func = _getclass(_getclass);
return ('function' !== typeof(/foo/)) ?
function(node) {
return 'function' == typeof node;
} :
function(node) {
return _getclass.func === _getclass(node);
};
})(Function.prototype.call.bind(Object.prototype.toString)),
loge: console.warn,
shift: Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.shift)
}),
};
Singleton.call('test', 'foo and stuff');
// eof

Here's one 'in your face answer', because I really don't like what I see here.
I don't see why you need this kind of construct, you already have that as part of language core.
1. dynamic lookup
you are doing it in a rather 'unprecedented' kind of way,
hashes already do that for you, and it's lightning fast to do a hash search.
If you are eval()-ing random strings to do simple name lookup you really have to
step aside from a keybord for a while... (no offense please)
2. closures
you are saying about 'using closures' which you actualy don't use.
your call function redeclares test functions each time it gets called,
and looks the ('fresh version') functions in it's own variable scope table,
instead of lookig them up in parent scope chains (aka. closures)
outside it's lexical location
3. nfe vs. nfd
ie. named function expressions vs. named function declarations
...you cannot assign a function to a local var and have it retain closure.
It is a feature, you might not be aware of how it works (it tripped me up as well).
check this article out for clarification
4. exceptions
Singleton: function name not found... x4!
Just go ahead and call a function,
interpreter will throw for you anyway if it cannot find/execute
5. eval (aka. ^^)
Singleton.call.ctx.fun = eval(Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
eval takes any string here(#!), and gladly executes ones like:
'for(;;);', or 'while(1);'... forever.
You probably don't want to have any code running unless it was your stuff.
6. arguments handling
It is considered best practice out there to use single (Object) options parameter
to 'fine tune' any significant piece of bundled functionality,
instead of trying to figure that out by type checking provided argument list
Here's, in couple of simple lines, what I (and as I can see #Jimmy Breck-McKye) suggest you should do:
var Singleton.call = (function () {
var funcmap = {
'f_1': function () {},
// etc.
'f_N': function () {},
};
return function (options) {
// options members:
// context, (Object) context, (defaults to global if none is given)
// func, (String) function_name,
// args, (Array) arguments to pass into a function
// this line does everything your 100+ lines long snippet was trying to:
// look's up parent scope for a function, tries to run it
// passing provided data, throws if it gets stuck.
return funcmap[options.func].apply(options.context, options.args);
};
})();
//

Answering my own question here.
The core of the issue is that you cannot assign a function to a local var and have it retain closure.
Consider that when writing a function with global and window scope, this is not necessary to call another function with identical scope. Such is not the case with member functions.
Another way of saying this is that there is no space where your cursor can sit and as you declare a function it automatically gets attached to the current this.
function fn(){}// if we are in global scope, then window.fn becomes defined
// but if we are inside, say, a constructor, simple declaration will not attach
// it to this, but fn is available in scope.
Any assignment on function declaration BREAKS part of the expected closure:
var IdentifierAvailableToClosure=function Unavailable(){}
But assignment after declaration works:
function NowAvailable(){}
var SynonymAvailableToo=NowAvailable;
This is what I meant by not wanting to repeat the name twice to get the mechanism to work.
This fact made me abandon other methods and rely on eval as suggested. Here is a first draft:
// This object is an encapsulation mechanism for a group of
// inter-dependent, static-ish, functions that can call each other
// without a this pointer prefix.
// Calls take the form of:
// Singleton.call(functionName:String [,arg1]...)
// or
// Singleton.call(contextObject:Object, functionName:String [,arg1]...)
// If a context is not provided, window is used.
//
// This type of mechanism is useful when you have defined a group
// of functions in the window/global scope and they are not ready
// to be formalized into a set of classes, or you have no intention
// of doing that
//
// To illustrate the issue, consider that a function
// which is defined in window/global scope
// does not have to use the this pointer to call a function of
// identical scope -- yet in a class member function, the this pointer
// MUST be used
// Therefore, trying to package such functions requires injecting
// the this pointer into function bodies where calls to associater
// functions are made
//
// Usage is primarily for development where one has control over
// global namespace pollution and the mechanism is useful in
// refactoring prior to formalization of methods into classes
var Singleton={
// Main call point
call:function(){
// Bail with error if no args
if (arguments.length==0) {
throw('Singleton: need at least 1 arg');
}
// As all functions in the local scope library below
// have access to the local scope via closure, we want to reduce
// pollution here, so lets attach locals to this call
// function instead of declaring locals
//
// Prepare to call anon fn
Singleton.call.args=arguments;
// Make ctx have args, context object, and function name
Singleton.call.ctx=(function (){// return args,ctx,name
// out
var args=[];
//locals
var x, fn;
// collapse identifier
var a=Singleton.call.args;
// closure object avail to functions, default to window
that=window;
// first real function argument
var arg_start=1;
// first arg must be function name or object
if (typeof a[0]=='string') {// use window ctx
fn=a[0];
// if first arg is object, second is name
}else if (typeof a[0]=='object') {
// assign given context
that=a[0];
// check second arg for string, function name
if (typeof a[1]!='string') {
var err='Singleton: second argument needs to be a fn name'
+' when first arg is a context object';
throw(err)
return;
}
// ok, have a name
fn=a[1];
// args follow
arg_start=2;
}else{
// improper arg types
var err='Singleton: first argument needs to be a string or object';
throw(err)
}
// build args array for function
for (x=arg_start;x<a.length;x++) {
args[args.length]=a[x];
}
// return context
return {
args: args
,that:that
,fn:fn
};
})();
// using function library present in local scope, try to find specified function
try{
Singleton.call.ctx.fun=eval(Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
}catch (e){
console.error('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
throw('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
}
// it must be a function
if (typeof Singleton.call.ctx.fun !== 'function') {
console.error('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
throw('Singleton: function name not found:' + Singleton.call.ctx.fn);
}
// library functions use that instead of this
// that is visible to them due to closure
var that=Singleton.call.ctx.that;
// Do the call!
return Singleton.call.ctx.fun.apply(that, Singleton.call.ctx.args);
//
// cool library of functions below,
// functions see each other through closure and not through this.fn
function test(s){
alert(test2()+' test:'+s);
}
function info_props(){
console.info(this_props());
}
function test2(){
return 'test2';
}
function this_props(){
var s='';
for (var i in that) {
s+=' '+i;
}
return s;
};
}
};

Parisitic inheritance in JavaScript

Watching a Douglas Crockford lecture on advanced JavaScript and he brings up the idea of parasitic inheritance which is essentially having constructors call other constructors to modify the object in question. Here is his code:
function gizmo(id, secret) {
secret = secret || {};
secret.id = id;
return {
toString: function () {
return "gizmo " + secret.id;
}
};
}
function hoozit(id) {
var secret = {},
that = gizmo(id, secret);
that.test = function (testid) {
return testid === secret.id;
};
return that;
}
var myHoozit = hoozit(20);
console.log(myHoozit.test(20)); //returns true
I understand the code and there is nothing too difficult to grasp here. The confusion takes place in the hoozit function. If you do not set secret = {} you will not get the a true being returned.
This is baffling because in the gizmo function, you see secret = secret || {} which should take care of this for us... but it doesn't.
Why is that short circuit not working correctly (secret = secret || {}) in the gizmo function when not being passed a second parameter in the hoozit function (breaks in both Chrome and Firefox)??

Why is that short circuit not working correctly (secret = secret || {}) in the gizmo function when not being passed a second parameter in the hoozit function (breaks in both Chrome and Firefox)??
Simple because you cannot access secret inside that.test because it does not exist in that scope:
function hoozit(id) {
var that = gizmo(id);
that.test = function (testid) {
// secret is not defined in this or in any higher scope
// hence you get a refernece error
return testid === secret.id;
};
return that;
}
The only secret object that exists is local to the gizmo function.
If you define it and just don't pass it to gizmo, then secret = secret || {} will evaluate to secret = {}, i.e. a new object is created inside the gizmo function. That value is only accessible within the gizmo function and is not related at all to the secret variable in the hoozit function. The secret object inside gizmo is a different than the one in hoozit.
function hoozit(id) {
var secret = {}, // secret object is created here
that = gizmo(id);
that.test = function (testid) {
// you never set `secret.id`, hence the comparison results in `false`
return testid === secret.id;
};
return that;
}
There is nothing wrong with secret = secret || {}, it is working as expected.

Let's look at a simpler example.
function Foo(baz){
baz = baz || {};
baz.boo = 1;
}
function Bar(baz){
baz = baz || {};
Foo(baz);
return baz;
}
If we call Bar(), we are passing an object to Foo. It then aguments the object by setting a boo property. Sweet!
Now, let's say our Bar function looks like this:
function Bar(baz){
baz = baz || {};
Foo();
return baz;
}
The only difference is that we are not passing an object to Foo. Because of this, Foo is creating an object inside its scope. We set a property on that new object, and then the function ends. The object isn't the parent scope of Bar, so Bar never knows this object is created, and has no way of accessing it. In the next few milliseconds, the object is deleted from RAM because there are no references to it.
That's not exactly the case with your question. The toString function references it. Because the outer scope is complete, it is now a local variable to that toString function. If we didn't pass a secret object, then it never leaves that scope. It must in some way be exported.
The more logical tactic would be to just create it as a property of our original object. Our secret could easily be accessed by a user that knows what JavaScript is, so we should save some headaches and use a sensible inheritance method.
If you don't know SomeFunction.call takes any number of arguments. The first is whatever you want to be this in the function, and the remainder are just the regular arguments.
function gizmo() {
this.toString = function () {
return "gizmo " + this.id;
};
};
function hoozit(id) {
this.id = id;
gizmo.call(this); // allow gizmo to manipulate this object
this.test = function (is) {
return this.id === is;
};
};
h = new hoozit(1);
console.log(h.test(1)); // true
console.log(h.toString()); // "gizmo 1"

You need secret = {}.
It's erroring at return testid === secret.id; because secret needs to exist.
The main magic you're probably looking for is, where is secret.id being populated, since all the operations are happening in gizmo(). The answer is this line: that = gizmo(id, secret);
secret is passed to gizmo and in JavaScript objects are passed by reference. This means that if you have a local object and pass that object as an argument to another function, any operations to that object will be reflected locally.
If you didn't want that to occur, you'd need some sort of copy/clone (the term clone has been used incorrectly by libraries to suggest a deep copy) of the argument. But in the example, you do want changes to secret in gizmo to update the secret in hoozit, so everything is working as it should.
Here's another way of writing it:
function gizmo(secret) { // only receive secret, which already has an "id"
secret = secret || {'id':null}; // if secret not passed create it with a default "id"
return {
toString: function () {
return "gizmo " + secret.id; // the reason why we needed a default "id"
}
};
}
function hoozit(id) {
var secret = {'id':id}, // create a object and set key "id" to hoozit's argument
that = gizmo(secret); // only pass secret
that.test = function (testid) {
return testid === secret.id;
};
return that;
}
var myHoozit = hoozit(20);
console.log( myHoozit.test(20) ); //returns true

JavaScript booleans are returned as values, not references

I'm trying to convert one of my mid-sized JavaScript APIs from "lots of global variables and functions" into something more akin to the namespace encapsulation as used in jQuery and other well thought-out JavaScript libraries. To effect this, I'm using anonymous functions.
Here's a fragment of the code:
(function(window, undefined) {
var MyLib = (function() {
var AbortProgram = true;
function DisplayAbortProgram() { alert('AbortProgram inside=' + AbortProgram); }
return { AbortProgram: AbortProgram, DisplayAbortProgram: DisplayAbortProgram }
} ())
window.MyLib = MyLib;
})(window);
MyLib.AbortProgram = false;
alert('AbortProgram outside=' + MyLib.AbortProgram);
MyLib.DisplayAbortProgram();
When run, the outside value of AbortProgram is false but the inside value is still true. This post is to confirm the reason why this is happening? I believe it's because that return statement is returning the value of DisplayAbortProgram and not a reference to it. The underlying reason is that JavaScript returns values for primitive types and not references - objects are passed by reference.
I've read up on this and believe there is no way to return a reference to that boolean variable so I'll have to implement a function called SetAbortProgram(value).

AbortProgram is hidden by the closure, you can't change it. That's most often the goal of the pattern you use.
What you do with MyLib.AbortProgram = false; isn't changing the existing hidden variable but adding a new AbortProgram variable.
If you want to make AbortProgram modifiable, simplify your code to
var MyLib = {
AbortProgram: true,
DisplayAbortProgram: function DisplayAbortProgram() { alert('AbortProgram inside=' + this.AbortProgram); }
};
MyLib.AbortProgram = false;
MyLib.DisplayAbortProgram();
Or else add a setter to your existing code :
(function(window, undefined) {
var MyLib = (function() {
var AbortProgram = true;
function DisplayAbortProgram() { alert('AbortProgram inside=' + AbortProgram); }
function setAbortProgram(v) {AbortProgram=v}
return { AbortProgram: AbortProgram, DisplayAbortProgram: DisplayAbortProgram, setAbortProgram:setAbortProgram}
} ())
window.MyLib = MyLib;
})(window);
MyLib.setAbortProgram(false);
alert('AbortProgram outside=' + MyLib.AbortProgram);
MyLib.DisplayAbortProgram();

You are correct that it is a passed-by-value rather than reference. Create a parameters object. That will be passed by reference:
var args = { AbortProgram: true };
Pass args around instead of AbortProgram. You can access your boolean via args.AbortProgram.

The underlying reason is that JavaScript returns values for some primitive types and not references.
Not only some. All primitive types will be passed as values. Only objects are references to their properties.
I've read up on this and believe there is no way to return a reference to that boolean variable so I'll have to implement a function called SetAbortProgram(value).
Yes, if you want to change the variable. Yet, you could just use the property of your object everywhere.

How to break closures in JavaScript

Is there any way to break a closure easily in JavaScript? The closest I have gotten is this:
var src = 3;
function foo () {
return function () {
return src; }
}
function bar (func) {
var src = 9;
return eval('('+func.toString()+')')(); // This line
}
alert(bar(foo()));
This prints '9', instead of '3', as a closure would dictate. However, this approach seems kind of ugly to me, are there any better ways?

Your code is not breaking the closure, you're just taking the code the makes up a function and evaluating it in a different context (where the identifier src has a different value). It has nothing at all to do with the closure that you've created over the original src.
It is impossible to inspect data that has been captured in a closure. In a sense, such data are even more "private" than private members in Java, C++, C# etc where you can always use reflection or pointer magic to access them anyway.

This could be useful if you are trying to create multiple similar methods in a loop. For example, if you're creating a click handler in a loop that relies on a loop variable to do something a little different in each handler. (I've removed the "eval" because it is unnecessary, and should generally never be used).
// Assign initial value
var src = 3;
// This is the regular js closure. Variables are saved by reference. So, changing the later will
// change the internal value.
var byref = function() {
return src;
}
// To "break" the closure or freeze the external value the external function is create and executed
// immidiatly. It is used like a constructor function which freezes the value of "src".
var byval = function(s) {
return function() { return s };
}(src);
src = 9;
alert("byref: " + byref()); // output: 9
alert("byval: " + byval()); // output: 3

As others said this doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. You should explain why you want this and what you want to achieve.
Anyway, one possible approach could be to access properties of an object inside your function. Example:
var src = 3;
function foo (context) {
context = context || window; // Fall back to the global namespace as default context
return function () {
return context.src;
}
}
function bar (func) {
var context = {src: 9};
return func(context);
}
alert(bar(foo));

If you want to access a variable in a wider scope, just don't reuse the variable name in a narrower scope.
That's how it is supposed to work. Work with it instead of trying to fight it.

Here is the code see if you can understand , closures defined within a loop .
var clicked = false;
for(var i=0;i<temp.length;i++){
(function(index){
if(clicked) return false;
$(temp[index]).on('click',function(){
if($(temp[index]).text()=="" && !$(".cell1").val()){
$(this).text(player1Val);
$(".cell1").val(true);
console.log("first player clicked ");
clicked = true;
$(this).off();
for(var j=0;j<temp.length;j++){
$(temp[j]).off('click');
}
return false;
}
else return false;
});
})(i);
}