I have been trying out some js code in jsfiddle and it seems I cant get all these combinations of codes below to work..
//combination #1
function get_set() {
this.get = function () {
document.write("get");
};
this.set = function () {
document.write("set");
};
};
var x = get_set; // storing function reference in x
x.get(); //invoking doesnt work.
//combination#2
var get_set = function() {
this.get = function () {
document.write("get");
};
this.set = function () {
document.write("set");
};
};
get_set.get(); //doesnt work as well..
Is there something that I miss? Thanks in advance for constructive suggestion/pointing out any errors. Would appreciate any help.
You either have to create a new instance of get_set
var x = new get_set();
or inside get_set you have to use return this; for this example to work.
Your get_set function is a constructor function. It's intended to create ('construct') instances of itself. In order to make that work you need the keyword new. So
var getset = new get_set;
creates an instance of get_set. Now the methods getset.set and getset.get are available.
In this case maybe you could create a unique instance using an Object literal:
var get_set = {
get: function () {
document.write("get");
},
set: function () {
document.write("set");
}
};
Now you don't need the new keyword and the methods are available right away (get_set.get, get_set.set)
Use x=new get_set; That will work.
Related
Sorry if my question is silly one,I searched on google but I could't find anything useful.
Here I have module with 2 functions inside it and here is the code
var sample = (function(){
var _return = [];
_return.bar = function(){
alert("hello world");
};
_return.foo = function(){
function test(){
this.bar();
};
};
return _return;
})();
sample.foo();
And my questions:
How can I access to the bar function inside test function? I tried this.this.bar() or parent.this.bar() but none of them worked.
And how can I access it with this operator?
Usually (unless one has used bind to change the context of a function), the this context is bound to the object on which the function is being called, i.e., if you call foo.bar(), then inside bar, this === foo. In your case, since you are returning _return, you want to access the function bar which is defined on the same object, i.e. this.bar. However, since you will call test directly, this will be bound to the window object.
There are three main ways of working around this issue:
Save the context while you can
_return.foo = function(){
var self = this;
function test(){
self.bar();
};
};
Working demo: http://jsfiddle.net/jcovmspr/
Use bind
The other approach is using bind (ES5):
_return.foo = function(){
function test_(){
this.bar();
};
var test = test_.bind(this);
};
Use arrow syntax
The third approach is using arrow syntax for defining test but this is ES6 only and you will need a transpiler to support more common browsers:
_return.foo = function(){
var test = () => {
this.bar();
};
};
You can use a closure like below,
Note: I prefer using 'that' or 'me' rather than 'self' because self is a special keyword in JS.
_return.foo = function() {
var that = this;
function test(){
that.bar();
}
};
or you can use bind:
_return.foo = function() {
var test = (function () {
this.bar();
}).bind(this);
};
Just refer to _return instead of this:
var sample = (function(){
var _return = {
bar: function(){
alert("hello world");
},
foo: function(){
return function test(){
_return.bar();
};
}
};
return _return;
})();
sample.foo()();
(Also, I've used a proper object literal instead of creating properties on an array)
I need to edit the function which locates inside of the constructor.
Example:
some.thing = function() {
this.somefn = function() { // this is the function that I need to fix
...
}
}
But function should be edited not just only for a single object (new obj = some.thing();) but also for any created objects by this constructor.
So is there any way to edit such inner-functions?
Here is a solution based on prototype:
var Something = function () {
this.f = function () {
console.log("Something");
};
};
var Old = Something;
var Something = function () {
Old.apply(this);
this.f = function () {
console.log("New");
};
};
Something.prototype = new Old();
var s = new Something();
s.f(); // prints "New"
The solutions seem just a little too obvious, so I'm wondering if the trouble is that you don't have access to the original code, and you need a more dynamic solution.
If so, one option may be to override the constructor with your own constructor, and have it call the original, and then update the object.
Original code:
some.thing = function() {
this.somefn = function() { // this is the function that I need to fix
...
}
}
Your code:
// cache a reference to the original constructor
var _thing = some.thing;
// your constructor
some.thing = function() {
// invoke the original constructor on the new object.
_thing.apply(this, arguments);
this.somefn = function() { /*your updated function*/ };
};
// maintain inheritance
some.thing.prototype = Object.create(some.thing.prototype);
// make an instance
var theThing = new some.thing();
Now you're getting the benefit of the original constructor and prototype chain, but you're injecting your own function on to the objects being created.
Only trouble may be that the original function you replaced could make special use of the original constructor's variable scope. If that's the case, there would be an issue to resolve.
It would be possible to retain and invoke the original method that you overwrote before invoking yours. Not sure if this situation calls for that or not.
I exactly know your need cause last week I passed through it. I just implemented a complete inheritance model in javascript and as far as I remember, I had a problem with overriding constructors and calling the parent class's ctor when child class is initializing.
So I just solved the problem with modifing some points in my design and it's now working like a charm! (something like C# but in Javascript)
By the way, I don't suggest you to change a method contents this way, but here is a way to do that (I myself did not do that this way and AGIAIN I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS, BUT THIS IS THE EASIEST):
var test = function() { /*InjectionPlace*/ };
eval("var newTest = " + test.toString().replace(
"/*InjectionPlace*/",
"var i = 10; alert(i);"
));
test();
newTest();
Cheers
I have the following JS code:
var Item = function ()
{
this.property = '';
this.myfunction = function ()
{
var value = this.property;
};
};
however, this does not point to the defining class so value doesn't get anything.
how do I access this.property from inside my function?
You need to create a closure which captures the value of parent scope's this:
var Item = function ()
{
this.property = '';
var self = this;
this.myfunction = function ()
{
var value = self.property;
};
};
Update: As others have pointed out, this closure is not needed when Item is used as a constructor (new Item()). Noting it here for future reference.
just create an alias for this. It will get closure'd.
var Item = function ()
{
this.property = '';
var self = this;
this.myfunction = function ()
{
var value = self.property;
};
};
Your code works as is if you call Item() as a constructor.
var item = new Item();
item.property = "the property";
item.myfunction(); // value = "the property"
this changes depending on the context. The context being how a function was invoked, not how it was defined, but how it was called.
Besides that, you seem to be mixing up two patterns here. I'm sure you meant something like:
var Item = function() {
this.property = '';
};
Item.prototype.myfunction = function() {
var value = this.property;
};
Instead you kind of mixed a closure pattern with prototypal, which doesn't seem very useful there. Closure is good for hiding members, allowing for true private members, but here you're exposing the property anyway. There's no reason not to stick that function on the prototype.
Do yourself a favor and ignore any concepts you have of more traditional OO, they won't do you any good here. Prototypal isn't nearly the same thing.
I have the following code example to use an object that receives the action from the callback. Doesn't seem like this is a good design pattern. Or is it?
When setTimeOut() fires on the function after 1 second, it uses the objInstance global variable (DOM scope) to access the ClassExample object instance. Can someone recommend a better way to utilize callbacks within an object oriented design?
The whole idea is so I can use the callback to update data within my object instance (increment a variable for example).
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
No, you're not. You'll want to do this:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
Now, if "afterTimeout" needs the proper object context, you could do this:
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
OK well you changed the question considerably with that little edit :-) If I were you, I'd just do this (like my original second example):
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
Then you don't need any ugly global variables around at all.
edit — Stackoverflow user #Christoph comments that this isn't particularly pretty. One thing that might help would be to use a "bind" facility, as provided by newer browsers natively (as a method on the Function prototype) or by some libraries (Prototype or Functional for example). What "bind" lets you do is create a little wrapper function like I've got above:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeout(this.afterTimeOut.bind(this), 1000);
}
That call to "bind" returns a function that is effectively the same sort of thing as the little wrapper I coded explicitly in the example.
function ClassExample{
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}; // Don't forget these
setTimeOut(afterTimeOut, 1000); // Don't use () if you're passing the function as an argument
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
That way you don't need the initiate() method.
If you really want the initiate() method, I'd do it like this:
function ClassExample{
var self = this;
self.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
};
self.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(self.afterTimeOut, 1000);
};
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
This is how I'd do it to allow timer reuse and minimize the number of closures:
function Timer(timeout, callback) {
this.timeout = timeout;
this.callback = callback;
}
Timer.prototype.run = function(thisArg /*, args... */) {
var argArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
var timer = this;
setTimeout(function() {
timer.callback.apply(thisArg, argArray);
}, timer.timeout);
};
var timer = new Timer(1000, alert);
timer.run(null, 'timer fired!');
And just for fun, a golfed version which is functionally equivalent, but replaces the object with a closure:
function delay(func, timeout) {
return function() {
var self = this, args = arguments;
setTimeout(function() { func.apply(self, args); }, timeout);
};
}
delay(alert, 1000).call(null, 'timer fired!');
You are right it is not the optimal way of doing what you are aiming for. however i have to wonder why you need to break the callstack as part of the initiation, it seems very academic.
apart from that if i had to do that, i'd probably use a closure like so:
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut((function(self) { return function() { self.afterTimeout();}})(this),1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate()
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeOut(function() {
instance.afterTimeOut();
}, 1000);
};
By saving this to a local variable, you can avoid using the global handle at all. Also this prevent the afterTimeout() from losing it's this.
Building on Znarkus answer...
I really don't know in which environment his code is running but for me the first approach just do not works. I got: 'ReferenceError: afterTimeOut is not defined'...
The second one, nevertheless, is really cool... I just changed setTimeOut for setTimeout (using lowercase 'o') and included parenthesis after the class name definition turning the first line of code into 'function ClassExample(){'; solved my problem.
My snippet of example code:
Oop with private behaviour, intern callback calling and etc.
function MyTry (name){
// keep this object pointer... that's the trick!
var self = this;
// create private variable
var d = new Date()toJSON().slice(0, 10);
// create a private function
function getName(){return name}
// create public access method
self.hello = function(){alert('Hello '+getName()+'!\nToday is: '+d)}
// note instance method hello passed as a callback function!
self.initiate = function(){setTimeout(self.hello, 3000)}
}
I'm wondering if any of yall have any insight as to how one could execute a function by reference in javascript.
http://mootools.net/shell/yL93N/1/
Any discussion would be cool.
-Chase
looking at your mooshell, the way i'd handle it in mootools is this:
http://mootools.net/shell/yL93N/10/
var proxyFunction = new Class({
message: "hello",
Binds: ['passByReference','sayit'],
passByReference: function(func) {
// console.log(this, this[func]);
if (this[func] && $type(this[func]) === "function")
this[func]();
},
sayit: function() {
alert(this.message);
},
killit: function() {
document.write('we\'re dead');
}
});
$('tryit').addEvent('change',function(e){
new proxyFunction().passByReference(this.get('value'));
});
// or have a permanent proxy instance if you call methods of the class often and need it to change things.
var proxy = new proxyFunction();
$('tryit').addEvent('change',function(e){
proxy.passByReference(this.get('value'));
});
the advantage of doing so is that all your proxied functions are behind a common object, don't pollute your window namespace as global variables and can share data that relates to the event.
Not exactly sure what you mean, but you can do this:
var func = window.alert;
var args = ["hello world"]
func.apply(window, args)
Globally-defined functions (and variables) are visible as members of the global window object.
Members of an object can be fetched by name using the square bracket notation: o['k'] is the same as o.k. So, for your example:
var function_name= $(this).val();
window[function_name]();
Like this?
function blah() {
...do stuff
}
myref = blah
myref()
The best way is to do:
func.call();
Function variables in JavaScript already are references. If you have a function:
var explode = function() { alert('boom!'); };
You can pass explode around as an argument, and it's only passing a handle to that function, not the entire function body.
For proof of this, try:
explode.id = 5;
var detonate = explode;
alert(detonate.id); // => 5
explode.id = 6;
alert(detonate.id); // => 6
functions are first class objects in Java Script. Effectively this means that you can treat it very much as if it were a variable, and pass it anywhere that you would expect a variable.
e.g.
var myFn = function() { alert('inside anonymous fn'); }
function callMyFn(paramFn)
{
paramFn();
}
callMyFn(myFn); //inside anonymous fn
function MyFnHolders(argFn)
{
this.argFn = argFn;
this.fieldFn = function() {
alert('inside fn field');
}
}
var myFnHolders = new MyFnHolders(myFn);
myFnHolders.argFn(); //'inside anonymous fn'
myFnHolders.fieldFn(); //'inside fn field'
//etc
so passing a function by ref can be done simply by assigning it to a variable and passing it around.
Here's one with a closure for your arguments...
function Runner(func, args) {
return function() { return func.apply(window, args); };
}
var ref = new Runner(window.alert, ["hello world"]);
ref();