We Keep Coding

Why when invoking a function is the first this the parent object, but on a subsequent function call this refers to the window object?

When initially invoking a function, the first this within the first function that is called refers to the parent object foo but on a subsequent function called by that first function this refers to the window object?
var foo = (function Obj(){
var t = this;
return {
getThis: getThis,
getSecondThis: getSecondThis
};
function getThis(){
console.log(this);
console.log(t);
getSecondThis()
return false;
}
function getSecondThis(){
console.log(this);
console.log(t);
return false;
}
})();
foo.getThis();
If I change the call from getSecondThis() to this.getSecondThis() then the this within getSecondThis() refers to the parent object foo see the code below
var foo = (function Obj(){
var t = this;
return {
getThis: getThis,
getSecondThis: getSecondThis
};
function getThis(){
console.log(this);
console.log(t);
this.getSecondThis() //line edited
return false;
}
function getSecondThis(){
console.log(this);
console.log(t);
return false;
}
})();
foo.getThis();
The getSecondThis() is within the scope of the parent object foo but window is returned when this is not specified on the second call.

It's just the way JS binds the calling context: JS binds the context (the this reference) ad-hoc. Meaning: depending on how, where and by what means it is invoked, this will reference a different object.
I've explained this in some detail before here, and in the linked answers found on the bottom
Basically, functions are first class objects, meaning that, like any value, you can assign a function to a multitude of variables/properties. Of course, if you assign a function to an object (as a property), that function is often referred to as a method, and you'd expect this to point to the object that owns that method.
However, as Pointy noted in the comments: An object cannot own another object. Objects can be referenced by one or more properties of another object.
JS will kindly set this to refer to the object that owns the function. But if you then assign the object to a variable, it would make no sense to have this point to that same object. Think of situations where you're passing functions as function arguments (callbacks in jQuery and so on). You probably want this to reference the new context (certainly the case in jQ event handlers!).
If no context is provided, JS sadly defaults the this reference to the global object.
You can explicitly bind a function to a given context using the Function.prototype.bind call.
If you want to specify the context for a single call, you can use Function.prototype.call(context, arg1, arg2); or Function.prototype.apply(context, [args]);
Most larger projects (toolkits like jQ for example) solve this issue by taking advantage of closure scoping. Using the module pattern, for example, is a common, and easy way to control the context. I've explained this, too, complete with graphs to illustrate what is going on :)
Some examples/puzzles to make this easier to follow or more fun:
var obj = (function()
{//function scope
'use strict';//this will be null, instead of global, omit this and this can be window
var obj = {},
funcOne = function()
{
console.log(this, obj, this === obj);
funcTwo(this);
obj.funcTwo();
obj.funcTwo(this);
obj.funcTwo(obj);
},
funcTwo = function(that)
{
console.log(this, obj, this === obj, this === that, that === obj);
};
obj.funcOne = funcOne;
obj.funcTwo = funcTwo;
return obj;//is assigned to the outer var
}());
obj.funcOne();
//output:
//- first logs itself twice, then true
//then calls made in funcOne:
funcTwo()
console.log(this, obj, this === obj, this === that, that === obj);
//- this: undefined (omit 'use strict' and it'll be window), obj,
// this === obj => false, this === that => false, that === obj => true
obj.funcTwo();
console.log(this, obj, this === obj, this === that, that === obj);
//logs obj twice, because obj.funcTwo means the context === obj
//this === obj is true (of course)
//that is undefined, so this === that and that === obj are false
//lastly
obj.funcTwo(this);
obj.funcTwo(obj);
You should be able to work that out. You know the context in which funcOne is being executed, and you know what the effects are of invoking funcTwo as a method of obj
Rule of thumb:
I hesitated to write this, because it's far from accurate, but 8/10 cases. Assuming no code has been meddling with contexts through bind, call, and apply, you can work out the context using this trick:
someObject.someMethod();
/\ ||
|===this===|
//another object:
var obj2 = {
borrowed: someObject.someMethod,
myOwn: function()
{
this.borrowed();
}
};
obj2.myOwn();//this === obj2 (as explained above),
\\
\==> this.borrowed === obj2.borrowed
\\
\==> ~= someObject.someMethod.call(obj2);//function is executed in context of obj2
//simple vars
var alias = someObject.someMethod;//assign to var
alias();//no owner to be seen?
||
?<==|
//non-strict mode:
[window.]alias();
/\ implied ||
|| ||
|==<this>===|
//strict mode
alias.call(undefined);//context is undefined

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;
};
}
};

TypeError: this is undefined

function foo(obj, method, ...args) {
if (!(method in obj)) return null;
try {
alert(!!obj); //shows true
return obj[method].apply(obj, args);
}
catch (e) {
alert(e);
}
}
When I call foo with a defined object, a valid method of it and some args, it shows:
TypeError: this is undefined.
What does this mean?
I thought this would be important here because I'm using apply whose 1st param will be used as this inside the method invoked. But here obj is valid and it doesn't even invoke the required method. An error is caught even before.
(...args means any extra arguments passed to foo after obj and method will be pushed into an array args which can be used by foo)
EDIT: ...args is valid. It's ES6.
EDIT: My code seems perfectly fine. I'm trying to check and see if the called function has something wrong. Sorry if that is the case.
EDIT: I'm sorry, the problem turned out to be with the method that was being invoked. I had said otherwise, but I was confused.
There was another callback in it.
array.forEach(function (a) { // do something with 'this'});
this was obviously being undefined since it didn't refer to the object.

demo
I changed your function to this. First we narrow down the parameters, to make sure they are of the correct types. We need an obj and a method. Furthermore, obj[method] better be a function, because we're trying to call it.
function foo(obj, method) {
if (typeof obj === 'undefined'
|| typeof method !== 'string'
|| typeof obj[method] !== 'function') {
return null;
}
I'm not sure how ES6 works, and have no way to test it, but this should continue to work. If you can get it to work without, it's an easy change (removing this line, and adding a parameter).
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 2);
return obj[method].apply(obj, args);e);
}
We can test it by giving it a Person.
function Person(){
this.say_name = function(first, last){
alert('My name is ' + first + ' ' + last);
};
}
var Me = new Person();
foo(Me, "say_name", "John", "Doe"); // shows "My name is John Doe"
Just ask if you need further explanation.

What object javascript function is bound to (what is its "this")?

I know that inside the function it is this.
var func = function {
return this.f === arguments.callee;
// => true, if bound to some object
// => false, if is bound to null, because this.f === undefined
}
var f = func; // not bound to anything;
var obj = {};
obj1.f = func; // bound to obj1 if called as obj1.f(), but not bound if called as func()
var bound = f.bind(obj2) // bound to obj2 if called as obj2.f() or as bound()
Edited:
You can't actually call obj2.f() as f doesn't become a property of obj2
edit end.
The question is: how to find the object, that the function is bound to, outside of this function?
I want to achieve this:
function g(f) {
if (typeof(f) !== 'function') throw 'error: f should be function';
if (f.boundto() === obj)
// this code will run if g(obj1.f) was called
doSomething(f);
// ....
if (f.boundto() === obj2)
// this code will run if g(obj2.f) or g(bound) was called
doSomethingElse(f);
}
and partial application without changing the object that the function is bound to:
function partial(f) {
return f.bind(f.boundto(), arguments.slice(1));
}
Consensus:
You can't do it. Takeaway: use bind and this with great care :)

Partial Application
You can do partial application:
// This lets us call the slice method as a function
// on an array-like object.
var slice = Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.slice);
function partial(f/*, ...args */) {
if (typeof f != 'function')
throw new TypeError('Function expected');
var args = slice(arguments, 1);
return function(/* ...moreArgs */) {
return f.apply(this, args.concat(slice(arguments)));
};
}
What Object is this Function Bound To?
Additionally, there's a pretty straight-forward solution to the first part of your question. Not sure if this is an option for you, but you can pretty easily monkey-patch things in JS. Monkey-patching bind is totally possible.
var _bind = Function.prototype.apply.bind(Function.prototype.bind);
Object.defineProperty(Function.prototype, 'bind', {
value: function(obj) {
var boundFunction = _bind(this, arguments);
boundFunction.boundObject = obj;
return boundFunction;
}
});
Just run that before any other scripts get run, and any script which uses bind, it will automatically add a boundObject property to the function:
function f() { }
var o = { };
var g = f.bind(o);
g.boundObject === o; // true
(Note: I'm assuming you're in an ES5 environment above due to the fact that you're using bind.)

A function in javascript is not technically bound to anything. It may be declared as a property of an object as in:
var obj = {
fn: function() {}
}
obj.fn();
But, if you get the function into it's own variable by itself, it is not bound to any particular object.
For example, if you did this:
var obj = {
fn: function() {}
}
var func = obj.fn;
func();
Then, when you call func() which in turn executes the fn() function, it will have no association with obj at all when it is called. Associating an object with a function is done by the caller of the function. It is not a property of the function.
If one were to use fn.bind(obj), that creates a new function that just internally executes a call to obj.fn(). It doesn't magically add any new capabilities to javascript. In fact, you can see a polyfill for .bind() to see how it works here on MDN.
If you are expecting this to always be a particular object no matter how a function is called, that is not how javascript works. Unless a function is actually a shim that forces an association with a hard-wird object when it's called (what .bind() does), then a function doesn't have a hard-wired association. The association is done by the caller based on how it calls the function. This is different than some other languages. For example, in C++, you can't call a function without having the right object to associate with it at call time. The language simply won't resolve the function call and you get a compile error.
If you are branching on types in javascript, then you are probably not using the object-oriented capabilities of the language properly or to your best advantage.

Instead of binding the function func to the objects, why not try treating func as an object, that can hold obj1 and obj2 as its properties?
For example:
var func = function {
this.object; // Could be obj1 or obj2
return this.f === arguments.callee;
// => true, if this.object is not null
}
var f = func;
f.object = obj1; // or func.object = obj2;
You can also write a function that handles whether or not the object is obj1 or obj2:
function g(f) {
if (typeof(f) !== 'function') throw 'error: f should be function';
if (f.object === obj)
// this code will run if g(f) was called
doSomething(f);
if (f.object === obj2)
// this code will run if g(f) or g(bound) was called
doSomethingElse(f);
}
The reason is that you want to treat obj1 and obj2 as a property of the function f. However, when you bind, you are adding the function as a property of either obj1 or obj2. It's possible to bind the function to multiple objects, so it doesn't make sense to look for THE one object to which you bound the function; because you're adding the function as a subset of the object.
In this case, since you want to treat the object as a subset of the function, it might make sense to add a property into the function that can hold obj1 or obj2.

If you are the one doing the bind, you can add a field to the function to record the this for later testing.
var that = "hello";
var xyz = function () { console.log(this); }.bind(that);
xyz.that = that;
// xyz is callable as in xyz(), plus you can test xyz.that without calling

How does jQuery hijack "this"?

I'm just curious to know how jQuery is able to hijack the 'this' keyword in Javascript. From the book I'm reading: "Javascript the Definitive Guide" it states that "this" is a keyword and you cannot alter it like you can with an identifier.
Now, say you are in your own object constructor and you make a call to some jQuery code, how is it able to hijack this from you?
function MyObject(){
// At this point "this" is referring to this object
$("div").each(function(){
// Now this refers to the currently matched div
});
}
My only guess would be that since you are providing a callback to the jQuery each() function, you are now working with a closure that has the jQuery scope chain, and not your own object's scope chain. Is this on the right track?
thanks

You can change the context of a function (i.e. the this value) by calling it with .call() or .apply() and passing your intended context as the first argument.
E.g.
function fn() {
return this.foo;
}
fn.call({foo:123}); // => 123
Note: passing null to either call or apply makes the context the global object, or, in most cases, window.
It's probably worth noting the difference between .apply() and .call(). The former allows you to pass a bunch of arguments to the function it's being applied to as an array, while the latter lets you just add them as regular arguments after the context argument:
someFunction.apply( thisObject, [1,2,3] );
someFunction.call( thisObject, 1, 2, 3 );
From the jQuery source:
for ( var value = object[0];
i < length &&
callback.call( value, i, value ) // <=== LOOK!
!== false;
value = object[++i] ) {}

It doesn't hijack anything - it just makes sure that "this" is pointing at what it wants it to. Look up the standard "call" function that's available for any Javascript function object.

See the documentation for Function.apply. The first parameter is the "context". It can be any object. If null, it will be scoped globally.

The function type in JavaScript has a method called apply() which allows you to specify to what object this is bound at. Its signature is:
apply(thisObj, arguments);
Once called, it calls the function binding this to thisObj and passing the arguments arguments.
It is usually used as such:
function product(name, value)
{
this.name = name;
if (value > 1000)
this.value = 999;
else
this.value = value;
}
function prod_dept(name, value, dept)
{
this.dept = dept;
product.apply(this, arguments);
}
prod_dept.prototype = new product();
// since 5 is less than 1000 value is set
var cheese = new prod_dept("feta", 5, "food");
// since 5000 is above 1000, value will be 999
var car = new prod_dept("honda", 5000, "auto");

try this:
var MyObject = { "Test": "Hello world!" };
(function ()
{
alert(this.Test); // Gives "Hello world!"
}).call(MyObject);
(function ()
{
alert(this.Test); // Gives "Hello world!"
}).apply(MyObject);
(function ()
{
alert(this.Test); // Gives "undefined"
})()

function.apply() and function.call() allow you to change what this points to in Javascript. Here's a couple of handy articles that explain it in greater detail - Scope In Javascript and Binding Scope in Javascript