I know this kind of question gets asked alot, but I still haven't been able to find a way to make this work correctly.
The code:
function doStuff () {
for (var i = 0; i< elementsList.length; i++) {
elementsList[i].previousSibling.lastChild.addEventListener("click", function(){
toggle(elementsList[i])}, false);
}
} // ends function
function toggle (element) {
alert (element);
}
The problem is in passing variables to the toggle function. It works with the this keyword (but that sends a reference to the clicked item, which in this case is useless), but not with elementsList[i] which alerts as undefined in Firefox.
As I understood it, using anonymous functions to call a function is enough to deal with closure problems, so what have I missed?
Try:
function startOfFunction() {
for (var i = 0; i< elementsList.length; i++) {
elementsList[i].previousSibling.lastChild.addEventListener(
"click",
(function(el){return function(){toggle(el);};})(elementsList[i]),
false
);
}
} // ends function
function toggle (element) {
alert (element);
}
The Problem is, that you want to use the var i! i is available in the onClick Event, (since closure and stuff). Since you have a loop, i is counted up. Now, if you click on any of the elements, i will always be elementsList.length (since all event functions access the same i )!
using the solution of Matt will work.
As an explanation: the anonymous function you use in the for loop references the variable "i" to get the element to toggle. As anonymous functions use the "live" value of the variable, when somebody clicks the element, "i" will always be elementsList.length+1.
The code example from Matt solves this by sticking the i into another function in which it is "fixated". This always holds true:
If you iterate over elements attaching events, do not use simple anonymous functions as they screw up, but rather create a new function for each element. The more readable version of Matts answer would be:
function iterate () {
for (var i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
// In here, i changes, so list[i] changes all the time, too. Pass it on!
list[i].addEventListener(createEventFunction(list[i]);
}
}
function createEventFunction (item) {
// In here, item is fixed as it is passed as a function parameter.
return function (event) {
alert(item);
};
}
Try:
function doStuff () {
for (var i = 0; i< elementsList.length; i++) {
(function(x) {
elementsList[x].previousSibling.lastChild.addEventListener("click", function(){
toggle(elementsList[x])}, false);
})(i);
}
} // ends function
I think it might be an issue with passing elementsList[i] around, so the above code has a closure which should help.
Related
Can someone explain to me why JSLint complains about "Function inside the loop" with this example:
for (var i = 0; i < buttons.length; i++) {
(function(i) {
buttons[i].onclick = function(e) {
t.progressBars[t.current].update(buttons[i].getAttribute("data-value"));
}
})(i);
}
But dosen't when I change it to:
function makeHandler(i)
{
return function() {
t.progressBars[t.current].update(buttons[i].getAttribute("data-value"));
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < buttons.length; i++) {
buttons[i].onclick = makeHandler(i);
}
I don't quite understand as it seems that with each loop iteration new function object has to be returned, even though it happens inside of makeHandler() function. Why the second example is ok with JS linters?
Quoting from linterrors,
var elems = document.getElementsByClassName("myClass"), i;
for (i = 0; i < elems.length; i++) {
(function (iCopy) {
"use strict";
elems[i].addEventListener("click", function () {
this.innerHTML = iCopy;
});
}(i));
}
What we have now captures the value of i at each iteration of the loop. This happens because JavaScript passes arguments to functions by value. This means that iCopy within the capturing function is not related to i in any way (except for the fact that they happen to have the same value at that point in time). If i changes later (which it does - on the next iteration of the loop) then iCopy is not affected.
This will work as we expect it to but the problem now is that the JavaScript interpreter will create an instance of the capturing function per loop iteration. It has to do this because it doesn't know if the function object will be modified elsewhere. Since functions are standard JavaScript objects, they can have properties like any other object, which could be changed in the loop. Thus by creating the function in the loop context, you cause the interpreter to create multiple function instances, which can cause unexpected behavior and performance problems. To fix the issue, we need to move the function out of the loop:
I would have liked to use Array.prototype.forEach here, like this
buttons.forEach(function(curButton) {
curButton.onclick = function(e) {
t.progressBars[t.current].update(curButton.getAttribute("data-value"));
};
});
Your two examples are not equivalent.
In the first, you are creating an anonymous function and calling it on every loop.
The inner function (the click event handler) is fine - you're assigning a new function - but it's the anonymous outer function that is inefficient in this context. In your second example the outer function is refactored out of the loop where is it only created once, instead of buttons.length times.
I know this is probably "double-posted". But I am not able to assign the solutions to my problem.
I have 6 fileupload input fields. Whenever they change, I wanna alert "Changed!".
I want to iterate through thoes 6 fileupload id's with a for-loop.
Now, it gives me the error on variable i "Mutable variable is accessible from closure". I saw some solutions for this. But I'm not able to use these solutions for my problem.
function fileUploadCheck() {
for (var i = 1; i <= 6; i++) {
$("document").ready(function () {
$("#SOMEID"+i).change(function () {
alert('changed!');
});
});
}
}
jQuery uses implicit iteration. You don't have to loop manually.
$("input[type=file]").change(function(event) {
// check your console to see the value of `this`
console.log(this, "changed");
});
From the jQuery .each docs
Note: most jQuery methods that return a jQuery object also loop through the set of elements in the jQuery collection — a process known as implicit iteration. When this occurs, it is often unnecessary to explicitly iterate with the .each() method:
// The .each() method is unnecessary here:
$( "li" ).each(function() {
$( this ).addClass( "foo" );
});
// Instead, you should rely on implicit iteration:
$( "li" ).addClass( "bar" );
Regarding your "Mutable variable is accesible from closure", see this simplified example
for (var i=1; i<=6; i++) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(i);
}, 100);
}
// 777777
// ALL SEVENS? WTF
The reason for that is, the closure depends on i, but i is changing outside of the closure. By the time any function is run, i has already set to 7, so the logged output for each function is 7.
If you use the method I have above, you won't have to worry about this at all. If you are still curious how you would fix this, please see
for (var i=1, fn; i<=6; i++) {
fn = (function(n) {
console.log(n);
})(i);
setTimeout(fn, 100);
}
// 123456
// YAY
Now each function is properly "bound" with an immutable i input; meaning the value of i will not change inside of the closure-wrapped function. Check out Function.prototype.bind if you're interested in shortcuts ^.^
This code is supposed to pop up an alert with the number of the image when you click it:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
You can see it not working at http://jsfiddle.net/upFaJ/. I know that this is because all of the click-handler closures are referring to the same object i, so every single handler pops up "10" when it's triggered.
However, when I do this, it works fine:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
}
You can see it working at http://jsfiddle.net/v4sSD/.
Why does it work? There's still only one i object in memory, right? Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference. The output of the two code snippets should be identical. So why is the i object being copied 10 times? Why does it work?
I think it's interesting that this version doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function () {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
})();
}
It seems that the passing of the object as a function parameter makes all the difference.
EDIT: OK, so the previous example can be explained by primitives (i) being passed by value to the function call. But what about this example, which uses real objects?
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Not working: http://jsfiddle.net/Zpwku/
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
(function (t) {
t.click(function () { t.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(t);
})(toggler);
}
Working: http://jsfiddle.net/YLSn6/
Most of the answers are correct in that passing an object as a function parameter breaks a closure and thus allow us to assign things to functions from within a loop. But I'd like to point out why this is the case, and it's not just a special case for closures.
You see, the way javascript passes parameters to functions is a bit different form other languages. Firstly, it seems to have two ways of doing it depending on weather it's a primitive value or an object. For primitive values it seems to pass by value and for objects it seems to pass by reference.
How javascript passes function arguments
Actually, the real explanation of what javascript does explains both situations, as well as why it breaks closures, using just a single mechanism.
What javascript does is actually it passes parameters by copy of reference. That is to say, it creates another reference to the parameter and passes that new reference into the function.
Pass by value?
Assume that all variables in javascript are references. In other languages, when we say a variable is a reference, we expect it to behave like this:
var i = 1;
function increment (n) { n = n+1 };
increment(i); // we would expect i to be 2 if i is a reference
But in javascript, it's not the case:
console.log(i); // i is still 1
That's a classic pass by value isn't it?
Pass by reference?
But wait, for objects it's a different story:
var o = {a:1,b:2}
function foo (x) {
x.c = 3;
}
foo(o);
If parameters were passed by value we'd expect the o object to be unchanged but:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
That's classic pass by reference there. So we have two behaviors depending on weather we're passing a primitive type or an object.
Wait, what?
But wait a second, check this out:
var o = {a:1,b:2,c:3}
function bar (x) {
x = {a:2,b:4,c:6}
}
bar(o);
Now see what happens:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
What! That's not passing by reference! The values are unchanged!
Which is why I call it pass by copy of reference. If we think about it this way, everything makes sense. We don't need to think of primitives as having special behavior when passed into a function because objects behave the same way. If we try to modify the object the variable points to then it works like pass by reference but if we try to modify the reference itself then it works like pass by value.
This also explains why closures are broken by passing a variable as a function parameter. Because the function call will create another reference that is not bound by the closure like the original variable.
Epilogue: I lied
One more thing before we end this. I said before that this unifies the behavior of primitive types and objects. Actually no, primitive types are still different:
var i = 1;
function bat (n) { n.hello = 'world' };
bat(i);
console.log(i.hello); // undefined, i is unchanged
I give up. There's no making sense of this. It's just the way it is.
It's because you are calling a function, passing it a value.
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
alert(i);
}
You expect this to alert different values, right? Because you are passing the current value of i to alert.
function attachClick(val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
}
With this function, you'd expect it to alert whatever val was passed into it, right? That also works when calling it in a loop:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
attachClick(i);
}
This:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
(function (val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
})(i);
}
is just an inline declaration of the above. You are declaring an anonymous function with the same characteristics as attachClick above and you call it immediately. The act of passing a value through a function parameter breaks any references to the i variable.
upvoted deceze's answer, but thought I'd try a simpler explanation. The reason the closure works is that variables in javascript are function scoped. The closure creates a new scope, and by passing the value of i in as a parameter, you are defining a local variable i in the new scope. without the closure, all of the click handlers you define are in the same scope, using the same i. the reason that your last code snippet doesn't work is because there is no local i, so all click handlers are looking to the nearest parent context with i defined.
I think the other thing that might be confusing you is this comment
Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference.
this is true for objects, but not primitive values (numbers, for example). This is why a new local i can be defined. To demonstrate, if you did something weird like wrapping the value of i in an array, the closure would not work, because arrays are passed by reference.
// doesn't work
for(var i=[0]; i[0]<10; i[0]++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2[0]).click(
function () { alert(i2[0]); }
);
})(i);
}
In the first example, there is only one value of i and it's the one used in the for loop. This, all event handlers will show the value of i when the for loop ends, not the desired value.
In the second example, the value of i at the time the event handler is installed is copied to the i2 function argument and there is a separate copy of that for each invocation of the function and thus for each event handler.
So, this:
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
Creates a new variable i2 that has it's own value for each separate invocation of the function. Because of closures in javascript, each separate copy of i2 is preserved for each separate event handler - thus solving your problem.
In the third example, no new copy of i is made (they all refer to the same i from the for loop) so it works the same as the first example.
Code 1 and Code 3 didn't work because i is a variable and values are changed in each loop. At the end of loop 10 will be assigned to i.
For more clear, take a look at this example,
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
}
alert(i)
http://jsfiddle.net/muthkum/t4Ur5/
You can see I put a alert after the loop and it will show show alert box with value 10.
This is what happening to Code 1 and Code 3.
Run the next example:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
i++;
You'll see that now, 11 is being alerted.
Therefore, you need to avoid the reference to i, by sending it as a function parameter, by it's value. You have already found the solution.
One thing that the other answers didn't mention is why this example that I gave in the question doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Coming back to the question months later with a better understanding of JavaScript, the reason it doesn't work can be understood as follows:
The var toggler declaration is hoisted to the top of the function call. All references to toggler are to the same actual identifier.
The closure referenced in the anonymous function is the same (not a shallow copy) of the one containing toggler, which is being updated for each iteration of the loop.
#2 is quite surprising. This alerts "5" for example:
var o;
setTimeout(function () { o = {value: 5}; }, 100);
setTimeout(function () { alert(o.value) }, 1000);
My code:
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = function () { doStuff(i); };
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'tilesloaded', x);
}
The doStuff method simply alerts the value of i. mapInfos has two entries, so you'd expect it to alert 0 and 1, but instead it alerts 2 and 2. I can appreciate vaguely why it is doing this (although var i should keep it local to the scope of the loop?) but how can I make it work as intended?
edit — note that when first posted, the original question included a link to a jsfiddle that seemed to be a relevant example of what the current question is trying to achieve, only it appears to work ...
The code in the jsfiddle works because there's only one "i" in that code. The "i" used in the second loop (where the functions are actually called) is the same "i" as used in the first loop. Thus, you get the right answer because that second loop is running "i" through all the values from zero through four again. If you added:
i = 100;
functions[0]();
you'd get 100 printed out.
The only way to introduce a new scope in JavaScript is a function. One approach is to write a separate "function maker" function:
function makeCallback(param) {
return function() {
doStuff(param);
};
}
Then in your loop:
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = makeCallback(i);
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'titlesloaded', x);
}
That'll work because the call to the "makeCallback" function isolates a copy of the value of "i" into a new, unique instance of "param" in the closure returned.
Create a new scope for it.
Functions create scope.
function doStuffFactory(i) {
return function () { doStuff(i); };
}
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = doStuffFactory(i);
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'tilesloaded', x);
}
Change it to
var x = function (param) { doStuff(param); };
Obviously what is going on is that you are alerting a variable that is changing. With the above change it copies it so even if i changes it will still alert the right value.
Javascript doesn't have block scope, so you don't get an x that's local to the loop. Yea!
It has function scope, though.
Yep, weird isn't it!Pointy has an explanation
I have no idea why your first example worked (I wasn't expecting it to) Pointy has an explanation of why your first example worked - The reason why your second one doesn't is because i is scoped to the function containing the for loop, not to the scope defined by the for loop. In fact the only things that have scope in JavaScript are functions. This means that by the time your function gets executed i is 2.
What you need to do is create a scope, for example:
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = (function() {
return function () { doStuff(i); };
})(i);
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'tilesloaded', x);
}
See JavaScript closures in for-loops for more.
I have the following function. The problem is that instead of waiting for the user to click the image as expected, the function immediately fires the imgReplace function for each element in the images array.
Have I done something wrong?
Could the fact I'm using a separate Javascript routine based on Jquery be relevant here?
function setup () {
var images = document.getElementById("mycarousel");
images = images.getElementsByTagName("img");
for (var i = 0; i< images.length; i++) {
images[i].onclick = imgReplace (images[i]);
}
}
Wow I just fixed this embarrassing bug in some of my own code. Everybody else has gotten it wrong:
images[i].onclick = function() {imgReplace(images[i]);};
won't work. Instead, it should be:
images[i].onclick = (function(i) { return function() { imgReplace(images[i]); }; })(i);
Paul Alexander's answer is on the right track, but you can't fix the problem by introducing another local variable like that. JavaScript blocks (like the {} block in the "for" loop) don't create new scopes, which is a significant (and non-obvious) difference from Java or C++. Only functions create scope (setting aside some new ES5 features), so that's why another function is introduced above. The "i" variable from the loop is passed in as a parameter to an anonymous function. That function returns the actual event handler function, but now the "i" it references will be the distinct parameter of the outer function's scope. Each loop iteration will therefore create a new scope devoted to that single value of "i".
Your assigning the result of the call to imageReplace to the onclick handler. Instead wrap the call to imageReplace in it's own function
images[i].click = function(){ imgReplace( images[i] ) }
However, doing so will always replace the last image. You need to create a new variable to enclose the index
for (var i = 0; i< images.length; i++) {
var imageIndex = i;
images[i].onclick = function(){ imgReplace (images[imageIndex]); }
}
What you want to do here is:
images[i].onclick = function() {imgReplace(images[i]);}
try that.
Cheers