Related
How do I pass variables by reference in JavaScript?
I have three variables that I want to perform several operations to, so I want to put them in a for loop and perform the operations to each one.
Pseudocode:
myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
for (var x = 0; x < myArray.length; x++){
// Do stuff to the array
makePretty(myArray[x]);
}
// Now do stuff to the updated variables
What is the best way to do this?
There is no "pass by reference" available in JavaScript. You can pass an object (which is to say, you can pass-by-value a reference to an object) and then have a function modify the object contents:
function alterObject(obj) {
obj.foo = "goodbye";
}
var myObj = { foo: "hello world" };
alterObject(myObj);
alert(myObj.foo); // "goodbye" instead of "hello world"
You can iterate over the properties of an array with a numeric index and modify each cell of the array, if you want.
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
arr[i] = arr[i] + 1;
}
It's important to note that "pass-by-reference" is a very specific term. It does not mean simply that it's possible to pass a reference to a modifiable object. Instead, it means that it's possible to pass a simple variable in such a way as to allow a function to modify that value in the calling context. So:
function swap(a, b) {
var tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp; //assign tmp to b
}
var x = 1, y = 2;
swap(x, y);
alert("x is " + x + ", y is " + y); // "x is 1, y is 2"
In a language like C++, it's possible to do that because that language does (sort-of) have pass-by-reference.
edit — this recently (March 2015) blew up on Reddit again over a blog post similar to mine mentioned below, though in this case about Java. It occurred to me while reading the back-and-forth in the Reddit comments that a big part of the confusion stems from the unfortunate collision involving the word "reference". The terminology "pass by reference" and "pass by value" predates the concept of having "objects" to work with in programming languages. It's really not about objects at all; it's about function parameters, and specifically how function parameters are "connected" (or not) to the calling environment. In particular, note that in a true pass-by-reference language — one that does involve objects — one would still have the ability to modify object contents, and it would look pretty much exactly like it does in JavaScript. However, one would also be able to modify the object reference in the calling environment, and that's the key thing that you can't do in JavaScript. A pass-by-reference language would pass not the reference itself, but a reference to the reference.
edit — here is a blog post on the topic. (Note the comment to that post that explains that C++ doesn't really have pass-by-reference. That is true. What C++ does have, however, is the ability to create references to plain variables, either explicitly at the point of function invocation to create a pointer, or implicitly when calling functions whose argument type signature calls for that to be done. Those are the key things JavaScript doesn't support.)
Primitive type variables like strings and numbers are always passed by value.
Arrays and Objects are passed by reference or by value based on these conditions:
if you are setting the value of an object or array it is Pass by Value.
object1 = { prop: "car" };
array1 = [1,2,3];
if you are changing a property value of an object or array then it is Pass by Reference.
object1.prop = "car";
array1[0] = 9;
Code
function passVar(obj1, obj2, num) {
obj1.prop = "laptop"; // will CHANGE original
obj2 = { prop: "computer" }; //will NOT affect original
num = num + 1; // will NOT affect original
}
var object1 = {
prop: "car"
};
var object2 = {
prop: "bike"
};
var number1 = 10;
passVar(object1, object2, number1);
console.log(object1); // output: Object { prop: "laptop" }
console.log(object2); // output: Object { prop: "bike" }
console.log(number1); // ouput: 10
Workaround to pass variable like by reference:
var a = 1;
inc = function(variableName) {
window[variableName] += 1;
};
inc('a');
alert(a); // 2
And yup, actually you can do it without access a global variable:
inc = (function () {
var variableName = 0;
var init = function () {
variableName += 1;
alert(variableName);
}
return init;
})();
inc();
Simple Object
function foo(x) {
// Function with other context
// Modify `x` property, increasing the value
x.value++;
}
// Initialize `ref` as object
var ref = {
// The `value` is inside `ref` variable object
// The initial value is `1`
value: 1
};
// Call function with object value
foo(ref);
// Call function with object value again
foo(ref);
console.log(ref.value); // Prints "3"
Custom Object
Object rvar
/**
* Aux function to create by-references variables
*/
function rvar(name, value, context) {
// If `this` is a `rvar` instance
if (this instanceof rvar) {
// Inside `rvar` context...
// Internal object value
this.value = value;
// Object `name` property
Object.defineProperty(this, 'name', { value: name });
// Object `hasValue` property
Object.defineProperty(this, 'hasValue', {
get: function () {
// If the internal object value is not `undefined`
return this.value !== undefined;
}
});
// Copy value constructor for type-check
if ((value !== undefined) && (value !== null)) {
this.constructor = value.constructor;
}
// To String method
this.toString = function () {
// Convert the internal value to string
return this.value + '';
};
} else {
// Outside `rvar` context...
// Initialice `rvar` object
if (!rvar.refs) {
rvar.refs = {};
}
// Initialize context if it is not defined
if (!context) {
context = this;
}
// Store variable
rvar.refs[name] = new rvar(name, value, context);
// Define variable at context
Object.defineProperty(context, name, {
// Getter
get: function () { return rvar.refs[name]; },
// Setter
set: function (v) { rvar.refs[name].value = v; },
// Can be overrided?
configurable: true
});
// Return object reference
return context[name];
}
}
// Variable Declaration
// Declare `test_ref` variable
rvar('test_ref_1');
// Assign value `5`
test_ref_1 = 5;
// Or
test_ref_1.value = 5;
// Or declare and initialize with `5`:
rvar('test_ref_2', 5);
// ------------------------------
// Test Code
// Test Function
function Fn1(v) { v.value = 100; }
// Test
function test(fn) { console.log(fn.toString()); console.info(fn()); }
// Declare
rvar('test_ref_number');
// First assign
test_ref_number = 5;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 5);
// Call function with reference
Fn1(test_ref_number);
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 100);
// Increase value
test_ref_number++;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 101);
// Update value
test_ref_number = test_ref_number - 10;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 91);
Yet another approach to pass any (local, primitive) variables by reference is by wrapping variable with closure "on the fly" by eval. This also works with "use strict". (Note: be aware that eval is not friendly to JavaScript optimizers, and also missing quotes around variable name may cause unpredictive results)
"use strict"
// Return text that will reference variable by name (by capturing that variable to closure)
function byRef(varName){
return "({get value(){return "+varName+";}, set value(v){"+varName+"=v;}})";
}
// Demo
// Assign argument by reference
function modifyArgument(argRef, multiplier){
argRef.value = argRef.value * multiplier;
}
(function(){
var x = 10;
alert("x before: " + x);
modifyArgument(eval(byRef("x")), 42);
alert("x after: " + x);
})()
Live sample: https://jsfiddle.net/t3k4403w/
There's actually a pretty sollution:
function updateArray(context, targetName, callback) {
context[targetName] = context[targetName].map(callback);
}
var myArray = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
updateArray(this, 'myArray', item => {return '_' + item});
console.log(myArray); //(3) ["_a", "_b", "_c"]
I personally dislike the "pass by reference" functionality offered by various programming languages. Perhaps that's because I am just discovering the concepts of functional programming, but I always get goosebumps when I see functions that cause side effects (like manipulating parameters passed by reference). I personally strongly embrace the "single responsibility" principle.
IMHO, a function should return just one result/value using the return keyword. Instead of modifying a parameter/argument, I would just return the modified parameter/argument value and leave any desired reassignments up to the calling code.
But sometimes (hopefully very rarely), it is necessary to return two or more result values from the same function. In that case, I would opt to include all those resulting values in a single structure or object. Again, processing any reassignments should be up to the calling code.
Example:
Suppose passing parameters would be supported by using a special keyword like 'ref' in the argument list. My code might look something like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(ref value) {
value = "Bar";
}
//The Calling Code
var value = "Foo";
doSomething(value);
console.log(value); //Bar
Instead, I would actually prefer to do something like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(value) {
value = "Bar";
return value;
}
//The Calling Code:
var value = "Foo";
value = doSomething(value); //Reassignment
console.log(value); //Bar
When I would need to write a function that returns multiple values, I would not use parameters passed by reference either. So I would avoid code like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(ref value) {
value = "Bar";
//Do other work
var otherValue = "Something else";
return otherValue;
}
//The Calling Code
var value = "Foo";
var otherValue = doSomething(value);
console.log(value); //Bar
console.log(otherValue); //Something else
Instead, I would actually prefer to return both new values inside an object, like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(value) {
value = "Bar";
//Do more work
var otherValue = "Something else";
return {
value: value,
otherValue: otherValue
};
}
//The Calling Code:
var value = "Foo";
var result = doSomething(value);
value = result.value; //Reassignment
console.log(value); //Bar
console.log(result.otherValue);
These code examples are quite simplified, but it roughly demonstrates how I personally would handle such stuff. It helps me to keep various responsibilities in the correct place.
Happy coding. :)
I've been playing around with syntax to do this sort of thing, but it requires some helpers that are a little unusual. It starts with not using 'var' at all, but a simple 'DECLARE' helper that creates a local variable and defines a scope for it via an anonymous callback. By controlling how variables are declared, we can choose to wrap them into objects so that they can always be passed by reference, essentially. This is similar to one of the Eduardo Cuomo's answer above, but the solution below does not require using strings as variable identifiers. Here's some minimal code to show the concept.
function Wrapper(val){
this.VAL = val;
}
Wrapper.prototype.toString = function(){
return this.VAL.toString();
}
function DECLARE(val, callback){
var valWrapped = new Wrapper(val);
callback(valWrapped);
}
function INC(ref){
if(ref && ref.hasOwnProperty('VAL')){
ref.VAL++;
}
else{
ref++;//or maybe throw here instead?
}
return ref;
}
DECLARE(5, function(five){ //consider this line the same as 'let five = 5'
console.log("five is now " + five);
INC(five); // increment
console.log("five is incremented to " + five);
});
Actually it is really easy. The problem is understanding that once passing classic arguments, you are scoped into another, read-only zone.
The solution is to pass the arguments using JavaScript's object-oriented design. It is the same as putting the arguments in a global/scoped variable, but better...
function action(){
/* Process this.arg, modification allowed */
}
action.arg = [["empty-array"], "some string", 0x100, "last argument"];
action();
You can also promise stuff up to enjoy the well-known chain:
Here is the whole thing, with promise-like structure
function action(){
/* Process this.arg, modification allowed */
this.arg = ["a", "b"];
}
action.setArg = function(){this.arg = arguments; return this;}
action.setArg(["empty-array"], "some string", 0x100, "last argument")()
Or better yet...
action.setArg(["empty-array"],"some string",0x100,"last argument").call()
JavaScript can modify array items inside a function (it is passed as a reference to the object/array).
function makeAllPretty(items) {
for (var x = 0; x < myArray.length; x++){
// Do stuff to the array
items[x] = makePretty(items[x]);
}
}
myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
makeAllPretty(myArray);
Here's another example:
function inc(items) {
for (let i=0; i < items.length; i++) {
items[i]++;
}
}
let values = [1,2,3];
inc(values);
console.log(values);
// Prints [2,3,4]
Putting aside the pass-by-reference discussion, those still looking for a solution to the stated question could use:
const myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
myArray.forEach(var => var = makePretty(var));
As we don't have javascript pass by reference functionality, the only way to do this is to make the function return the value and let the caller assign it:
So
"makePretty(myArray[x]);"
should be
"myArray[x] = makePretty(myArray[x]);"
This is in case you need assignment inside the function, if only mutation is necessary, then passing the object and mutating it should be enough
I know exactly what you mean. The same thing in Swift will be no problem. The bottom line is use let, not var.
The fact that primitives are passed by value, but the fact that the value of var i at the point of iteration is not copied into the anonymous function is quite surprising to say the least.
for (let i = 0; i < boxArray.length; i++) {
boxArray[i].onclick = function() { console.log(i) }; // Correctly prints the index
}
If you want to pass variables by reference, a better way to do that is by passing your arguments in an object and then start changing the value by using window:
window["varName"] = value;
Example:
// Variables with first values
var x = 1, b = 0, f = 15;
function asByReference (
argumentHasVars = {}, // Passing variables in object
newValues = []) // Pass new values in array
{
let VarsNames = [];
// Getting variables names one by one
for(let name in argumentHasVars)
VarsNames.push(name);
// Accessing variables by using window one by one
for(let i = 0; i < VarsNames.length; i += 1)
window[VarsNames[i]] = newValues[i]; // Set new value
}
console.log(x, b, f); // Output with first values
asByReference({x, b, f}, [5, 5, 5]); // Passing as by reference
console.log(x, b, f); // Output after changing values
I like to solve the lack of by reference in JavaScript like this example shows.
The essence of this is that you don't try to create a by reference. You instead use the return functionality and make it able to return multiple values. So there isn't any need to insert your values in arrays or objects.
var x = "First";
var y = "Second";
var z = "Third";
log('Before call:',x,y,z);
with (myFunc(x, y, z)) {x = a; y = b; z = c;} // <-- Way to call it
log('After call :',x,y,z);
function myFunc(a, b, c) {
a = "Changed first parameter";
b = "Changed second parameter";
c = "Changed third parameter";
return {a:a, b:b, c:c}; // <-- Return multiple values
}
function log(txt,p1,p2,p3) {
document.getElementById('msg').innerHTML += txt + '<br>' + p1 + '<br>' + p2 + '<br>' + p3 + '<br><br>'
}
<div id='msg'></div>
Using Destructuring here is an example where I have 3 variables, and on each I do the multiple operations:
If value is less than 0 then change to 0,
If greater than 255 then change to 1,
Otherwise dived the number by 255 to convert from a range of 0-255 to a range of 0-1.
let a = 52.4, b = -25.1, c = 534.5;
[a, b, c] = [a, b, c].map(n => n < 0 ? 0 : n > 255 ? 1 : n / 255);
console.log(a, b, c); // 0.20549019607843136 0 1
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.
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";
What's the proper way to create an object (with its "namespaces" and such)?
1
//Company object
var Microsoft = {};
//Create an employee
Microsoft.employee = function(name) {
this.name = name;
}
or
2
//Company object
Apple = {
employee: function(name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
OR another way? Shoot.
Read something about prototypes and such. What's the proper way to do it; benefits and downsides?
First off, you forgot the var for Apple. But otherwise these are basically the same thing.
Secondly, in my examples I'm not going to use the attribute name since, when dealing with functions, the name is an empty string by default. At least in Node.js and Chrome. So I'll use empName instead.
In the Microsoft example you are making an empty object and then adding an attribute to it after the fact.
In the Apple example you are making an object with the attribute right away.
It's really just what makes the most sense to you, and which you prefer. Since they are, more or less, equivalent.
Now, this has nothing to do with prototypes. Here's an example of what you did:
var Apple = {
employee: function(empName) {
this.empName = empName;
}
};
Apple.employee('Hank');
Apple.empName; // 'Hank'
And here's how you would do this with an instance (using the new operator, and the prototype)
var Apple = function() {}; // base 'parent'
Apple.prototype.employee = function(empName) {
this.empName = empName
};
var a = new Apple();
a.employee('Hank');
a.empName; // 'Hank'
Apple.empName; // undefined
So prototype is used to add attributes to new instances of an object (using 'object' loosely). Note that to access employee in Apple, on this second example, you would have to do something like
Apple.prototype.employee('Hank'); // doesn't really do much
Apple.empName; // undefined
// but you can call the employee prototype with a bound variable
// you'd do this if you don't want to make an instance of Apple
// but still want to use one of it's prototypes
var obj = {};
Apple.prototype.employee.call(obj, 'Hank');
obj.empName; // 'Hank'
// a practical use of accessing a prototype method is
// when wanting to convert a function's arguments
// to an array. function arguments are like an array,
// but until turned into one they are not completely the same
var func = function() {
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
var sum = 0;
for(var i = 0, l = args.length; i < l; i++) {
sum += args[i];
}
return sum;
};
func(1); // 1
func(1, 2, 3, 4, 5); // 15
Hope that helps.
EDIT: Also, don't prototype objects (e.g. {} or Object). It's not safe to do this. Since, essentially, every variable in JavaScript is an object, then any prototypes you add to them will be available on all variables. So if you did Object.prototype.xyz = 12 then had var obj = { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3} and then tried for(var key in obj) { console.log(key); } you would result in the following logs: a, b, c and xyz ... which you wouldn't want.
How do I pass variables by reference in JavaScript?
I have three variables that I want to perform several operations to, so I want to put them in a for loop and perform the operations to each one.
Pseudocode:
myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
for (var x = 0; x < myArray.length; x++){
// Do stuff to the array
makePretty(myArray[x]);
}
// Now do stuff to the updated variables
What is the best way to do this?
There is no "pass by reference" available in JavaScript. You can pass an object (which is to say, you can pass-by-value a reference to an object) and then have a function modify the object contents:
function alterObject(obj) {
obj.foo = "goodbye";
}
var myObj = { foo: "hello world" };
alterObject(myObj);
alert(myObj.foo); // "goodbye" instead of "hello world"
You can iterate over the properties of an array with a numeric index and modify each cell of the array, if you want.
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
arr[i] = arr[i] + 1;
}
It's important to note that "pass-by-reference" is a very specific term. It does not mean simply that it's possible to pass a reference to a modifiable object. Instead, it means that it's possible to pass a simple variable in such a way as to allow a function to modify that value in the calling context. So:
function swap(a, b) {
var tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp; //assign tmp to b
}
var x = 1, y = 2;
swap(x, y);
alert("x is " + x + ", y is " + y); // "x is 1, y is 2"
In a language like C++, it's possible to do that because that language does (sort-of) have pass-by-reference.
edit — this recently (March 2015) blew up on Reddit again over a blog post similar to mine mentioned below, though in this case about Java. It occurred to me while reading the back-and-forth in the Reddit comments that a big part of the confusion stems from the unfortunate collision involving the word "reference". The terminology "pass by reference" and "pass by value" predates the concept of having "objects" to work with in programming languages. It's really not about objects at all; it's about function parameters, and specifically how function parameters are "connected" (or not) to the calling environment. In particular, note that in a true pass-by-reference language — one that does involve objects — one would still have the ability to modify object contents, and it would look pretty much exactly like it does in JavaScript. However, one would also be able to modify the object reference in the calling environment, and that's the key thing that you can't do in JavaScript. A pass-by-reference language would pass not the reference itself, but a reference to the reference.
edit — here is a blog post on the topic. (Note the comment to that post that explains that C++ doesn't really have pass-by-reference. That is true. What C++ does have, however, is the ability to create references to plain variables, either explicitly at the point of function invocation to create a pointer, or implicitly when calling functions whose argument type signature calls for that to be done. Those are the key things JavaScript doesn't support.)
Primitive type variables like strings and numbers are always passed by value.
Arrays and Objects are passed by reference or by value based on these conditions:
if you are setting the value of an object or array it is Pass by Value.
object1 = { prop: "car" };
array1 = [1,2,3];
if you are changing a property value of an object or array then it is Pass by Reference.
object1.prop = "car";
array1[0] = 9;
Code
function passVar(obj1, obj2, num) {
obj1.prop = "laptop"; // will CHANGE original
obj2 = { prop: "computer" }; //will NOT affect original
num = num + 1; // will NOT affect original
}
var object1 = {
prop: "car"
};
var object2 = {
prop: "bike"
};
var number1 = 10;
passVar(object1, object2, number1);
console.log(object1); // output: Object { prop: "laptop" }
console.log(object2); // output: Object { prop: "bike" }
console.log(number1); // ouput: 10
Workaround to pass variable like by reference:
var a = 1;
inc = function(variableName) {
window[variableName] += 1;
};
inc('a');
alert(a); // 2
And yup, actually you can do it without access a global variable:
inc = (function () {
var variableName = 0;
var init = function () {
variableName += 1;
alert(variableName);
}
return init;
})();
inc();
Simple Object
function foo(x) {
// Function with other context
// Modify `x` property, increasing the value
x.value++;
}
// Initialize `ref` as object
var ref = {
// The `value` is inside `ref` variable object
// The initial value is `1`
value: 1
};
// Call function with object value
foo(ref);
// Call function with object value again
foo(ref);
console.log(ref.value); // Prints "3"
Custom Object
Object rvar
/**
* Aux function to create by-references variables
*/
function rvar(name, value, context) {
// If `this` is a `rvar` instance
if (this instanceof rvar) {
// Inside `rvar` context...
// Internal object value
this.value = value;
// Object `name` property
Object.defineProperty(this, 'name', { value: name });
// Object `hasValue` property
Object.defineProperty(this, 'hasValue', {
get: function () {
// If the internal object value is not `undefined`
return this.value !== undefined;
}
});
// Copy value constructor for type-check
if ((value !== undefined) && (value !== null)) {
this.constructor = value.constructor;
}
// To String method
this.toString = function () {
// Convert the internal value to string
return this.value + '';
};
} else {
// Outside `rvar` context...
// Initialice `rvar` object
if (!rvar.refs) {
rvar.refs = {};
}
// Initialize context if it is not defined
if (!context) {
context = this;
}
// Store variable
rvar.refs[name] = new rvar(name, value, context);
// Define variable at context
Object.defineProperty(context, name, {
// Getter
get: function () { return rvar.refs[name]; },
// Setter
set: function (v) { rvar.refs[name].value = v; },
// Can be overrided?
configurable: true
});
// Return object reference
return context[name];
}
}
// Variable Declaration
// Declare `test_ref` variable
rvar('test_ref_1');
// Assign value `5`
test_ref_1 = 5;
// Or
test_ref_1.value = 5;
// Or declare and initialize with `5`:
rvar('test_ref_2', 5);
// ------------------------------
// Test Code
// Test Function
function Fn1(v) { v.value = 100; }
// Test
function test(fn) { console.log(fn.toString()); console.info(fn()); }
// Declare
rvar('test_ref_number');
// First assign
test_ref_number = 5;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 5);
// Call function with reference
Fn1(test_ref_number);
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 100);
// Increase value
test_ref_number++;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 101);
// Update value
test_ref_number = test_ref_number - 10;
test(() => test_ref_number.value === 91);
Yet another approach to pass any (local, primitive) variables by reference is by wrapping variable with closure "on the fly" by eval. This also works with "use strict". (Note: be aware that eval is not friendly to JavaScript optimizers, and also missing quotes around variable name may cause unpredictive results)
"use strict"
// Return text that will reference variable by name (by capturing that variable to closure)
function byRef(varName){
return "({get value(){return "+varName+";}, set value(v){"+varName+"=v;}})";
}
// Demo
// Assign argument by reference
function modifyArgument(argRef, multiplier){
argRef.value = argRef.value * multiplier;
}
(function(){
var x = 10;
alert("x before: " + x);
modifyArgument(eval(byRef("x")), 42);
alert("x after: " + x);
})()
Live sample: https://jsfiddle.net/t3k4403w/
There's actually a pretty sollution:
function updateArray(context, targetName, callback) {
context[targetName] = context[targetName].map(callback);
}
var myArray = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
updateArray(this, 'myArray', item => {return '_' + item});
console.log(myArray); //(3) ["_a", "_b", "_c"]
I personally dislike the "pass by reference" functionality offered by various programming languages. Perhaps that's because I am just discovering the concepts of functional programming, but I always get goosebumps when I see functions that cause side effects (like manipulating parameters passed by reference). I personally strongly embrace the "single responsibility" principle.
IMHO, a function should return just one result/value using the return keyword. Instead of modifying a parameter/argument, I would just return the modified parameter/argument value and leave any desired reassignments up to the calling code.
But sometimes (hopefully very rarely), it is necessary to return two or more result values from the same function. In that case, I would opt to include all those resulting values in a single structure or object. Again, processing any reassignments should be up to the calling code.
Example:
Suppose passing parameters would be supported by using a special keyword like 'ref' in the argument list. My code might look something like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(ref value) {
value = "Bar";
}
//The Calling Code
var value = "Foo";
doSomething(value);
console.log(value); //Bar
Instead, I would actually prefer to do something like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(value) {
value = "Bar";
return value;
}
//The Calling Code:
var value = "Foo";
value = doSomething(value); //Reassignment
console.log(value); //Bar
When I would need to write a function that returns multiple values, I would not use parameters passed by reference either. So I would avoid code like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(ref value) {
value = "Bar";
//Do other work
var otherValue = "Something else";
return otherValue;
}
//The Calling Code
var value = "Foo";
var otherValue = doSomething(value);
console.log(value); //Bar
console.log(otherValue); //Something else
Instead, I would actually prefer to return both new values inside an object, like this:
//The Function
function doSomething(value) {
value = "Bar";
//Do more work
var otherValue = "Something else";
return {
value: value,
otherValue: otherValue
};
}
//The Calling Code:
var value = "Foo";
var result = doSomething(value);
value = result.value; //Reassignment
console.log(value); //Bar
console.log(result.otherValue);
These code examples are quite simplified, but it roughly demonstrates how I personally would handle such stuff. It helps me to keep various responsibilities in the correct place.
Happy coding. :)
I've been playing around with syntax to do this sort of thing, but it requires some helpers that are a little unusual. It starts with not using 'var' at all, but a simple 'DECLARE' helper that creates a local variable and defines a scope for it via an anonymous callback. By controlling how variables are declared, we can choose to wrap them into objects so that they can always be passed by reference, essentially. This is similar to one of the Eduardo Cuomo's answer above, but the solution below does not require using strings as variable identifiers. Here's some minimal code to show the concept.
function Wrapper(val){
this.VAL = val;
}
Wrapper.prototype.toString = function(){
return this.VAL.toString();
}
function DECLARE(val, callback){
var valWrapped = new Wrapper(val);
callback(valWrapped);
}
function INC(ref){
if(ref && ref.hasOwnProperty('VAL')){
ref.VAL++;
}
else{
ref++;//or maybe throw here instead?
}
return ref;
}
DECLARE(5, function(five){ //consider this line the same as 'let five = 5'
console.log("five is now " + five);
INC(five); // increment
console.log("five is incremented to " + five);
});
Actually it is really easy. The problem is understanding that once passing classic arguments, you are scoped into another, read-only zone.
The solution is to pass the arguments using JavaScript's object-oriented design. It is the same as putting the arguments in a global/scoped variable, but better...
function action(){
/* Process this.arg, modification allowed */
}
action.arg = [["empty-array"], "some string", 0x100, "last argument"];
action();
You can also promise stuff up to enjoy the well-known chain:
Here is the whole thing, with promise-like structure
function action(){
/* Process this.arg, modification allowed */
this.arg = ["a", "b"];
}
action.setArg = function(){this.arg = arguments; return this;}
action.setArg(["empty-array"], "some string", 0x100, "last argument")()
Or better yet...
action.setArg(["empty-array"],"some string",0x100,"last argument").call()
JavaScript can modify array items inside a function (it is passed as a reference to the object/array).
function makeAllPretty(items) {
for (var x = 0; x < myArray.length; x++){
// Do stuff to the array
items[x] = makePretty(items[x]);
}
}
myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
makeAllPretty(myArray);
Here's another example:
function inc(items) {
for (let i=0; i < items.length; i++) {
items[i]++;
}
}
let values = [1,2,3];
inc(values);
console.log(values);
// Prints [2,3,4]
Putting aside the pass-by-reference discussion, those still looking for a solution to the stated question could use:
const myArray = new Array(var1, var2, var3);
myArray.forEach(var => var = makePretty(var));
As we don't have javascript pass by reference functionality, the only way to do this is to make the function return the value and let the caller assign it:
So
"makePretty(myArray[x]);"
should be
"myArray[x] = makePretty(myArray[x]);"
This is in case you need assignment inside the function, if only mutation is necessary, then passing the object and mutating it should be enough
I know exactly what you mean. The same thing in Swift will be no problem. The bottom line is use let, not var.
The fact that primitives are passed by value, but the fact that the value of var i at the point of iteration is not copied into the anonymous function is quite surprising to say the least.
for (let i = 0; i < boxArray.length; i++) {
boxArray[i].onclick = function() { console.log(i) }; // Correctly prints the index
}
If you want to pass variables by reference, a better way to do that is by passing your arguments in an object and then start changing the value by using window:
window["varName"] = value;
Example:
// Variables with first values
var x = 1, b = 0, f = 15;
function asByReference (
argumentHasVars = {}, // Passing variables in object
newValues = []) // Pass new values in array
{
let VarsNames = [];
// Getting variables names one by one
for(let name in argumentHasVars)
VarsNames.push(name);
// Accessing variables by using window one by one
for(let i = 0; i < VarsNames.length; i += 1)
window[VarsNames[i]] = newValues[i]; // Set new value
}
console.log(x, b, f); // Output with first values
asByReference({x, b, f}, [5, 5, 5]); // Passing as by reference
console.log(x, b, f); // Output after changing values
I like to solve the lack of by reference in JavaScript like this example shows.
The essence of this is that you don't try to create a by reference. You instead use the return functionality and make it able to return multiple values. So there isn't any need to insert your values in arrays or objects.
var x = "First";
var y = "Second";
var z = "Third";
log('Before call:',x,y,z);
with (myFunc(x, y, z)) {x = a; y = b; z = c;} // <-- Way to call it
log('After call :',x,y,z);
function myFunc(a, b, c) {
a = "Changed first parameter";
b = "Changed second parameter";
c = "Changed third parameter";
return {a:a, b:b, c:c}; // <-- Return multiple values
}
function log(txt,p1,p2,p3) {
document.getElementById('msg').innerHTML += txt + '<br>' + p1 + '<br>' + p2 + '<br>' + p3 + '<br><br>'
}
<div id='msg'></div>
Using Destructuring here is an example where I have 3 variables, and on each I do the multiple operations:
If value is less than 0 then change to 0,
If greater than 255 then change to 1,
Otherwise dived the number by 255 to convert from a range of 0-255 to a range of 0-1.
let a = 52.4, b = -25.1, c = 534.5;
[a, b, c] = [a, b, c].map(n => n < 0 ? 0 : n > 255 ? 1 : n / 255);
console.log(a, b, c); // 0.20549019607843136 0 1