What does the Object function in JavaScript do?
For example, what happens when we do Object(1)?
It forces something to be an object. I've not seen it being used in this way though.
var num = 1;
var obj = Object(num);
alert(typeof num); //displays "number"
alert(typeof obj): //displays "object"
alert(num + "," + obj); //displays "1,1"
The preferred, faster way to create an empty object on which you can put properties and methods on is by using {}. Three possible ways to create an object:
var emptyObj = {};
var emptyObj = new Object();
var emptyObj = new Object; // Object does not need an argument, so this is valid.
From the Mozilla developer site:
The Object constructor creates an object wrapper for the given value. If the value is null or undefined, it will create and return an empty object, otherwise, it will return an object of type that corresponds to the given value.
When called in a non-constructor context, Object behaves identically.
So Object(1) produces an object that behaves similarly to the primitive value 1, but with support for object features like assigning values to properties (Object(1).foo = 2 will work, (1).foo = 2 will not).
var obj = Object("test");
Creates a String "text", it's pretty similar to
var obj2 = "test";
Notice that the type of obj2 is "String" and of obj1 "Object"
Try this:
<script>
var obj = Object("test");
console.log(obj);
console.log(typeof(obj));
console.log(obj["0"]);
obj2 = "test";
console.log(obj2);
console.log(typeof(obj2));
console.log(obj2["0"]);
</script>
Creates an object http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_objects.asp
Object function is a constructor function, all other types(like Array, String, Number) inheritate it.
Related
I have an object with some properties which are String objects:
var obj = {
foo: new String("bar")
};
I am using String objects because I am needing to store additional sub-properties on the object while still being able to get the string value:
obj.foo.baz = "baz";
"" + obj.foo; //-> "bar";
I feel dumb for asking, but how can I update the value of a String object? Seems like some Array splice magic might need to be applied.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I understand string primitives in JS and immutability therein. This is an object I'm talking about. Here is the test that needs to pass:
assert.equal("" + obj.foo, "foo"); //-> true
assert.equal(obj.foo.baz, "baz"); //-> true
extend(obj, { foo: "foooooo" });
assert.equal("" + obj.foo, "foooooo"); //-> true
assert.equal(obj.foo.baz, "baz"); //-> true
You can't. Strings are immutable, regardless of how you "construct" them (literal or object).
What you should be doing is simply use an actual object to hold your values and your string.
At the most basic level this would be:
var obj = {
foo: "bar"
};
// later...
obj.baz = "baz";
"" + obj.foo; //-> "bar";
You can also consider using a monadic type as an "amplifier" / decorator, but that seems way overkill for this use case.
As a side note, adding properties and "random" functions to a string object is not a good OOP choice. These are strictly not relevant to the value that is the string, and only make sense to a higher level object, which is where they should reside.
You'd need to create a new String object and extend any new properties and values to that String object. I've provided a simple example below. That said, this example can be modified to suit your purposes (you'd create a custom extend or setter function).
Example of a property setter function
var createNewString = function (oldStringObj, string) {
var _new = new String(string);
var keys = Object.keys(oldStringObj); // returns only custom properties (not part of prototype)
for (var i=0,n=keys.length; i<n; i++){
var key = keys[i];
if (Number.isInteger(+key)) {
continue; // skip property if it's a numbered key
}
_new[key] = oldStringObj[key]; // simple assignment (not a deep copy) -- room for improvement
}
return _new;
};
Original object
var obj = {
foo: new String("bar")
};
obj.foo.baz = "baz"; // new property
Update the object
obj.foo = createNewString( obj.foo, 'foot' );
//obj.foo=='foot' and obj.foo.baz=='baz'
I suggest that you use a custom type for this, instead of the default String type. The ES6 spec defines that the underlying value for a String object is stored in its "[[StringData]] internal slot". The only place this slot is assigned is via the new String constructor, so it is implicitly immutable. You can create a new type which has the same string-like behaviours that you require, while being mutable.
class MutableString {
constructor(value) {
this.value = value;
}
toString() {
return this.value;
}
}
var obj = {
foo: new MutableString('bar')
};
obj.foo.baz = "baz";
console.assert("" + obj.foo == "bar");
console.assert(obj.foo + "" == "bar");
console.assert(obj.foo.baz == "baz");
console.assert(Object.keys({[obj.foo]: 1})[0] == "bar");
obj.foo.value = "foooooo";
console.assert("" + obj.foo == "foooooo");
console.assert(obj.foo + "" == "foooooo");
console.assert(obj.foo.baz == "baz");
console.assert(Object.keys({[obj.foo]: 1})[0] == "foooooo");
Because this isn't really a string it won't support any string methods, so it may not be suitable for your use. But it's more flexible and a little clearer, so I suggest considering it if possible.
It may be necessary to define a valueOf() method like toString() to handle some other cases, but I haven't verified.
As mentioned in MDN, Property names must be strings.
For code,
var foo = {unique_prop: 1}, obj = {};
obj[foo] = 'value';
console.log(obj[foo]);
In MDN, it says,
In the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine, this string would be "['object Object']".
How does the property(string literal) of object type obj is stored like?
Is the property stored as "['unique_prop 1']" ?
When you create a property on an object from a variable, JS engine calls toString() method on a passed value. The actual value for the key is decided from its type.
You can check this behaviour yourself:
var foo = {};
foo.toString = function() {
return "toString";
}
var bar = {};
bar[foo] = "prop value";
for (var k in bar) {
console.log(k);
}
I have a problem I can't solved because I can't explain this behaviour :
var A = function(value) {
this.prop = value;
};
A.prototype = {
prop: 0
};
var a = new A(1);
var b = new A(2);
console.log(a.prop);
console.log(b.prop);
output :
1
2
But, with this code (almost the same) :
var A = function(value) {
this.prop.value = value;
};
A.prototype = {
prop: {
value: 0
}
};
var a = new A(1);
var b = new A(2);
console.log(a.prop.value);
console.log(b.prop.value);
I have this output :
2
2
Can anybody explain me this ?
Thanks...
EDIT :
Here's a solution :
var A = function(value) {
this.prop = {};
this.prop.value = value;
};
A.prototype = {
};
var a = new A(1);
var b = new A(2);
console.log(a.prop.value);
console.log(b.prop.value);
In example 1, this.prop is a primitive type, which is referenced by value and thus not shared between instances.
In example 2, this.prop is an Object whose reference is initialized from the prototype from a single object, so this single object is shared by all instances.
In the last "example" solution, you create a new object with = {}, so all instances now have their own object.
More details about primitive types : Primitive value vs Reference value
prototype is created only once and it's only a simple object whose childs are attached for all instances of a function it belongs to.
So it's basically the same as if you write:
var obj = { value: 0 };
var a = {}, b = {};
a.obj = obj;
b.obj = obj;
obj.value = 2;
as you can see both a.obj and b.obj references to the same obj and both a.obj.value and b.obj.value will be 2 in this example
This is happening because in JS, objects are passed by reference, while primitives are not.
Since the prototype is shared between the 2 instances, modifying a object on it will update all instances.
Think of a prototype property as a property shared amongst all instances.
Yet you can override it on each instance, that 's what you do in the first example.
Once overriden in each instance, you do not access any more to the prototype property with obj.prop, which now refers to the instance property. You would need to use obj.prototype.prop to read it again, but this syntax is illegal : you can use obj.__proto__.prop (non standard) or Object.getPrototypeOf(obj).prop (EcmaScript 5) to do so.
In the second instance, you do not change the property in the constructor : rather you change a property of this property. So both constructor access to the very same object, then change one of its property value, so the last to set it will 'win'. Here the prototype property is not overriden ('hidden') by the instance property and accessing obj.prop in fact access 'obj.prototype.prop'.
Can someone explain what is happening in the code below? I'd expect toString to get called for either both foo and bar, or neither. How is literal object notation different from adding fields to an object after it is created?
function Obj(v) {
this.v = v;
};
Obj.prototype.toString= function() {
window.alert("to string called for " +
this.v);
return this.v.toString();
}
var foo = new Obj('foo');
var bar = new Obj('bar');
// toString is not called here.
var map = {foo : 'blah'};
// toString is called here.
map[bar] = "blah2";
Why do object literals not use toString() while adding to an existing object does use toString()?
http://jsfiddle.net/pByGJ/2/
The main reason that object literals don't evaluate the identifier to the left of the colon is so you're not force to quote all literal names (as you do in JSON).
Bracket notation forces you to quote property names, if you don't, it will be evaluated as a variable.
The reason toString() does get called in the second example is because bar has to be converted to a string to be used as a property name.
In your first example, you're just creating a literal object (that is the exactly the same as {"foo" : 'blah'}). So that is never using the variable foo
If you want to create an object using a variable name, you can't use literal object notation, you have to use [] which is what forces it to call toString()
Here's a function to create objects with variable names in one expression.
function obj(key, value /*, key, value, ... */) {
var obj = {};
for (var i = 0, ln = arguments.length ; i < ln; i+=2) {
obj[arguments[i]] = arguments[i+1];
}
return obj;
}
Clearer Example
The fact that your variable names and values are the same doesn't help understanding the problem. Let me suggest this code
var foo = new Obj('fooValue');
var bar = new Obj('barValue');
var map = {foo : 'blah'};
map[bar] = "blah2";
// You expect map to be {fooValue: 'blah', barValue: 'blah2'}
// But it's {foo: 'blah', barValue: 'blah2'}
To do what you need, use my obj function
// Almost as clear as literal notation ???
var map = obj(
foo, 'blah',
bar, 'blah2'
);
// map = {fooValue: 'blah', barValue: 'blah2'} Yay!!
keys in an object literal are taken as strings, not interpreted as variables. This:
var map = {foo : 'blah'};
is equivalent to this:
var map = {"foo" : 'blah'};
and this:
var map = {};
map["foo"] = "blah";
but is completely different than this:
var map = {};
map[foo] = "blah";
I have a basic understanding of instanceof in JavaScript, testing if the left hand side object "is of" the right hand side object type. The following 2 examples help me understand that...
var demo1 = function() {};
demo1.prototype = {
foo: "hello"
};
var demo2 = function() {
var pub = {
bar:"world"
};
return this.pub;
};
var obj1 = new demo1();
var obj2 = new demo2();
console.log(obj1 instanceof demo1); //returns true
console.log(obj2 instanceof demo2); //returns true
But on this 3rd example, I get false and I don't understand why....
var o = {}; // new Object;
o.toString(); // [object Object]
console.log(o instanceof toString); //returns false
Thanks for any help in understanding whats going on. Also...is is possible to make the 3rd example true?
Thanks again
toString does not cause a type change of o. It just returns a string representation of the object, without altering it. So, o is still a simple object and no instanceof String.
var o = {}; // new Object object
var ostring = o.toString(); // "[object Object]"
typeof o; // object
typeof ostring; // string - this is a primitive value, not an object; so that
ostring instanceof String; // is false
var stringobj = new String(ostring); // new String object
typeof stringobj; // object
stringobj instanceof String; // true!
o instanceof Object; // also true!
See also MDN reference for the String constructor.
o is an object; toString is a function. They are different types in JavaScript.
alert(typeof(o)); //"object"
alert(typeof(toString)); //"function"
JavaScript makes a distinction between objects and functions. Therefore, that's why you get false returned in your example.
With an object literal like
var o = {}; // new Object;
you create an object whose prototype is Object. Testing with instanceof will not yield any useful information. The only comparison that will yield true is
o instanceof Object