I have a function that takes a string object name and I need the function to create an new instance of a object that has the same name as the value of the string
For example,
function Foo(){}
function create(name){
return new name();
}
create('Foo'); //should be equivalent to new Foo();
While I know this would be possible via eval, it would be good to try and avoid using it. I am also interested if anyone has an alternative ideas to the problem (below)
I have a database and a set of (using classical OO methodology) classes, roughly one for each table that define common operations on that table. (Very similar to Zend_Db for those who use PHP). As everything is asynchronous doing tasks based on the result of the last one can lead to very indented code
var table1 = new Table1Db();
table1.doFoo({
success:function(){
var table2 = new Table2Db();
table2.doBar({
notFound:function(){
doStuff();
}
});
}
});
The obvious solution is to create helper methods that abstracts the asynchronous nature of the code.
Db.using(db) //the database object
.require('Table1', 'doFoo', 'success') //table name, function, excpected callback
.require('Table2', 'doBar', 'notFound')
.then(doStuff);
Which simplifies things. However the problem is that I need to be able to create the table classes, the names of which can be inferred from the first augment passed to require which leads me to the problem above...
Why not simply pass the constructor function into the require method? That way you sidestep the whole issue of converting from name to function. Your example would then look like:
Db.using(db) //the database object
.require(Table1Db, 'doFoo', 'success') //table constructor, function name, expected callback
.require(Table2Db, 'doBar', 'notFound')
.then(doStuff);
However, if you really want to use a string...
Why are you deadset on avoiding using eval? It is a tool in the language and every tool has its purpose (just as every tool can be misused). If you're concerned about allowing arbitrary execution, a simple regular expression test should render your usage safe.
If you're dead-set on avoiding eval and if all of your constructor functions are created in the default global scope (i.e. the window object), this would work:
function create(name) {
return new window[name]();
}
If you want to get fancy and support namespace objects (i.e. create('MyCompany.MyLibrary.MyObject'), you could do something like this:
function create(name) {
var current,
parts,
constructorName;
parts = name.split('.');
constructorName = parts[parts.length - 1];
current = window;
for (var i = 0; i < parts.length - 1; i++) {
current = current[parts[i]];
}
return new current[constructorName]();
}
You were at the gate of completeness. While Annabelle's solution let's you to do what's you've just wanted in the way you wanted (passing strings), let me offer you an alternative. (passing function references)
function Foo(){}
function create(name){
return new name();
}
create(Foo); // IS equivalent to new Foo();
And voila, it works :) I told you. You were at the doorsteps of the solution.
What happened is that you've try to do this
new 'Foo'()
Which doesn't makes much sense, does it? But now you pass the function by reference so the line return new name(); will be transformed into return new Foo(); just how you would expect.
And now the doors are opened to abstract the asynchronousness of your application. Have fun!
Appendix: Functions are first-class objects, which means that they can be stored by reference, passed as an argument by reference or returned by another function as values.
Related
In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?
method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.
The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.
Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.
You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...
I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this
No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.
I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.
Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.
Is it possible to find the name of an anonymous function?
e.g. trying to find a way to alert either anonyFu or findMe in this code http://jsfiddle.net/L5F5N/1/
function namedFu(){
alert(arguments.callee);
alert(arguments.callee.name);
alert(arguments.callee.caller);
alert(arguments.caller);
alert(arguments.name);
}
var anonyFu = function() {
alert(arguments.callee);
alert(arguments.callee.name);
alert(arguments.callee.caller);
alert(arguments.caller);
alert(arguments.name);
}
var findMe= function(){
namedFu();
anonyFu();
}
findMe();
This is for some internal testing, so it doesn't need to be cross-browser. In fact, I'd be happy even if I had to install a plugin.
You can identify any property of a function from inside it, programmatically, even an unnamed anonymous function, by using arguments.callee. So you can identify the function with this simple trick:
Whenever you're making a function, assign it some property that you can use to identify it later.
For example, always make a property called id:
var fubar = function() {
this.id = "fubar";
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.id);
}
arguments.callee is the function, itself, so any property of that function can be accessed like id above, even one you assign yourself.
Callee is officially deprecated, but still works in almost all browsers, and there are certain circumstances in which there is still no substitute. You just can't use it in "strict mode".
You can alternatively, of course, name the anonymous function, like:
var fubar = function foobar() {
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
But that's less elegant, obviously, since you can't (in this case) name it fubar in both spots; I had to make the actual name foobar.
If all of your functions have comments describing them, you can even grab that, like this:
var fubar = function() {
/*
fubar is effed up beyond all recognition
this returns some value or other that is described here
*/
//the stuff the function normally does, here
console.log(arguments.callee.toString().substr(0, 128);
}
Note that you can also use argument.callee.caller to access the function that called the current function. This lets you access the name (or properties, like id or the comment in the text) of the function from outside of it.
The reason you would do this is that you want to find out what called the function in question. This is a likely reason for you to be wanting to find this info programmatically, in the first place.
So if one of the fubar() examples above called this following function:
var kludge = function() {
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.id); // return "fubar" with the first version above
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.name); // return "foobar" in the second version above
console.log(arguments.callee.caller.toString().substr(0, 128);
/* that last one would return the first 128 characters in the third example,
which would happen to include the name in the comment.
Obviously, this is to be used only in a desperate case,
as it doesn't give you a concise value you can count on using)
*/
}
Doubt it's possible the way you've got it. For starters, if you added a line
var referenceFu = anonyFu;
which of those names would you expect to be able to log? They're both just references.
However – assuming you have the ability to change the code – this is valid javascript:
var anonyFu = function notActuallyAnonymous() {
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
which would log "notActuallyAnonymous". So you could just add names to all the anonymous functions you're interested in checking, without breaking your code.
Not sure that's helpful, but it's all I got.
I will add that if you know in which object that function is then you can add code - to that object or generally to objects prototype - that will get a key name basing on value.
Object.prototype.getKeyByValue = function( value ) {
for( var prop in this ) {
if( this.hasOwnProperty( prop ) ) {
if( this[ prop ] === value )
return prop;
}
}
}
And then you can use
THAT.getKeyByValue(arguments.callee.caller);
Used this approach once for debugging with performance testing involved in project where most of functions are in one object.
Didn't want to name all functions nor double names in code by any other mean, needed to calculate time of each function running - so did this plus pushing times on stack on function start and popping on end.
Why? To add very little code to each function and same for each of them to make measurements and calls list on console. It's temporary ofc.
THAT._TT = [];
THAT._TS = function () {
THAT._TT.push(performance.now());
}
THAT._TE = function () {
var tt = performance.now() - THAT._TT.pop();
var txt = THAT.getKeyByValue(arguments.callee.caller);
console.log('['+tt+'] -> '+txt);
};
THAT.some_function = function (x,y,z) {
THAT._TS();
// ... normal function job
THAT._TE();
}
THAT.some_other_function = function (a,b,c) {
THAT._TS();
// ... normal function job
THAT._TE();
}
Not very useful but maybe it will help someone with similar problem in similar circumstances.
arguments.callee it's deprecated, as MDN states:
You should avoid using arguments.callee() and just give every function
(expression) a name.
In other words:
[1,2,3].forEach(function foo() {
// you can call `foo` here for recursion
})
If what you want is to have a name for an anonymous function assigned to a variable, let's say you're debugging your code and you want to track the name of this function, then you can just name it twice, this is a common pattern:
var foo = function foo() { ... }
Except the evaling case specified in the MDN docs, I can't think of any other case where you'd want to use arguments.callee.
No. By definition, an anonymous function has no name. Yet, if you wanted to ask for function expressions: Yes, you can name them.
And no, it is not possible to get the name of a variable (which references the function) during runtime.
Is there any kind of persistence framework for JavaScript and/or the Google v8 engine?
I want to store (serialize) a whole graph of objects (including, e.g., functions) and re-load it later. JSON is not sufficient, since it does not permit functions to be stored and permits only a tree-like structure (i.e. no two objects referencing the same object).
I need to be able to do that generically (i.e. without knowing the JavaScript code at the time at which I write my program embedding v8), since I want the user of my program to be able to customize it with JavaScript, but I need to store the state of my program (including the state of the customization) and re-load it later. Hence I need to store the state of the JavaScript engine.
Edit:
Example:
Suppose we have the following code:
var obj = { a: 4, b: function (x) { return x + this.a; } }
// ...
if ( ... ) { obj.a = 5; }
// ...
if ( ... ) { var c = 1; obj.b = function (x) { return x + this.a + c; } }
// ...
// now I want to serialize obj
Then is it (without any meta-information about the logic of the program) possible to serialize obj and later deserialize it such that obj.b (2) delivers the same result after deserialization as it did before serialization?
Second Edit: Note the closure.
Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is not currently possible in Javascript. The reason is that closures are not just objects, they're objects bound to an execution context.
Getting past the "this can't be done in javascript" issue and moving into the "what if wrote a patch for V8 to allow this" phase of the answer, this is conceptually difficult. Essentially, for every closure you'd serialize, you would have to serialize the Context object that the closure exists in. It'd be nice to be able to just serialize the HandleScope, but the nature of closures is that you can't reach inside them.
Okay, so let's say you've written a function that can serialize the Context that the closure exists in, and you can even deserialize it. What do you do with it?
The answer to that is 'not much'. Javascript can only be executed in a single context at a time. The closure that you've deserialized doesn't exists in the context that you're trying to pull it back into. You can't really pass data between contexts, and if your function has data bound to free variables, do you use the ones that exist in the deserializer-invoking context, or do you overwrite it with the deserialized context? Conceptually, this is a nightmare.
Ecmascript Harmony had considered giving us nearly-first-class continuations, but it's been pushed form the discussion which I rant about here, but this isn't going to happen any time soon.
HTML5 local storage allows persistence at client level through javascript.
I'm not sure if it will fit your needings, as to being able to store a function you'll need to somewhat give it some markup that allows you to deserialize it when retrieving it from storage (or maybe just store it as plain text and try to eval it on retrieval)
http://diveintohtml5.info/storage.html
I don't think persisting functions is a good practice. I can suggest you the below approach. Turn your JSON data to lets say some class like "MyData". You can find two functions fromJSON, toJSON which will do the magic you want.
var MyData = function(props){
this.temp = "a";
this.getTemp = function(){
return this.temp;
}
this.fromJSON = function(props){
if(props){
this.temp = props.temp;
}
}
this.toJSON = function(){
var props = {};
props.temp = this.temp;
return props;
}
this.fromJSON(props);
}
var obj = new MyData({"temp" : "b"});
var state = obj.toJSON();
// persist state about the object as JSON string
LOCALSTORAGE.put(state); // You can write some HTML5 local storage stuff to persist
var persistedState = LOCALSTORAGE.get(); // You can use the above HTML5 local storage stuff to read the persisted stuff
var newBornObj = new MyData(persistedState);
This question just got upvoted so can update question with what I did
I solved it by iterating over the window object (or user specified object root) and when I found the correct instance I backtracked and got the name from the index. The final solution can be found here
https://github.com/AndersMalmgren/Knockout.BindingConventions
Update end
I'm planning on writing a convention over configuration template source engine for KnockoutJS / MVC.
I'm started with a little client side POC and ran into a show stopper right away
My plan is use this syntax or something similar
MyApp.EditCustomersViewModel = function() {
ko.templates.loadView(this);
};
When doing this it will check the tamplate cache or fetch the templates from server using the object name as key.
The problem is I cant get the name of the prototype object, i tried this
Object.prototype.getName = function() {
var funcNameRegex = /function (.{1,})\(/;
var results = (funcNameRegex).exec((this).constructor.toString());
return (results && results.length > 1) ? results[1] : "";
};
If works for objects defined like this
function MyClass() {
}
If you add a prototype to the above object it will not work, or if you define it like this
MyApp = {};
MyApp.MyClass = function() {
};
Prototype and scoping is two musts so this is a showstopper, any ideas?
Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/aRWLA/
edit: The background for this is like this.
On the server you have structure like this
Templates\ [ViewName]\index.html
Templates\ [ViewName]\sub-model-template.html
on the client you will do
MyApp.EditCustomersViewModel = function() {
ko.templates.loadView(this);
};
which will generate a ajax request with the objects name as key, which will fetch all the templates for the view in question
Only hoisted functions (function someFunc() {) have a retrievable name.
Assigned functions do not, because you are not technically naming the function but creating an anonymous function and assigning a reference to it (in the memory) to a named variable.
So it's the var, not the function, that is named.
This makes the very idea of retrieving function names pretty much a none-starter, since in any vaguely mature pattern you'll be writing methods, not hoisted functions - and methods of course are assigned functions.
Named expressions (see other answers) are a partial workaround but these have other issues - not least lack of support in older IEs.
(Sidenote: I've long expected browser vendors to build around this such that the names of assigned functions became retrievable, but no joy yet AFAIK.)
I think you problem in improper replacing function prototype: if you replace function prototype object then you must preserve constructor member in prototype:
function Test1() {
}
Test1.prototype={
constructor: Test1
};
MyApp={};
MyApp.MyClass=function MyClass(){
};
MyApp.MyClass.prototype={
constructor: MyApp.MyClass
};
Your example: http://jsfiddle.net/aRWLA/1/
Modified example: http://jsfiddle.net/aRWLA/2/
You can make use of named function expressions:
MyApp.MyClass = function MyClass() { ... };
But note that (suprise) they don't work correctly in all versions of IE.
See: http://kangax.github.com/nfe/
THIS DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION
However, the code might be useful to other people, so I'm leaving it here, just in case. I don't expect upvotes, but please don't abuse it for downvoting either. Thanks.
I don't know your use case, as such I think you've got a design issue - the problem you describe shouldn't happen in practice.
But let's say you do need to have this working. An easy way to do what you need would be something like:
function findNamed(obj, fn){
for(var p in obj)
if(obj[p] === fn)
return p;
return false;
}
var m = {};
m.MyClass = function() {};
console.log(findNamed(m, m.MyClass));
Of course, the solution could be made into a more appropriate OOP form, but this is just to give an idea.
To replicate your use case, it would look like:
m.MyClass = function() {
findNamed(this, arguments.callee);
};
So, the final code is:
Object.prototype.getNameOfCall = function(fn) {
for(var p in this)
if(this[p] === fn)
return p;
throw "Callback not in object.";
};
var m = {};
m.MyClass = function() {
console.log(this.getNameOfCall(arguments.callee)); // MyClass
};
m.MyClass(); // test it out
I'm making a google chrome extension and trying to get reference of a local variable within a closure scope.
// The script model of the target website
// I can't change any code of these
function Player(playerName){
this.name = playerName;
this.score = 0;
}
function Match(playerRed,playerBlue){
var player_red = new Player(playerRed);
var player_blue = new Player(playerBlue);
}
var tennis = new Match("Mike","John")
so what I'm trying to do in my content script is to inject a function into prototype of Match
just to get the variable player_red and player_blue:
function Match(playerRed,playerBlue){
var player_red = new Player(playerRed);
var player_blue = new Player(playerBlue);
//hoping to add this into Match.prototype
this.showMatchInfo = function(){
alert(player_red.name + " vs " + player_blue.name);
}
}
but this will not work because player_red and player_blue isn't defined under this.
I found this question through search. The solution is to "wrap the constructor in a new constructor and then set the prototypes equal". Unfortunately this doesn't work for me as I have no access to the original script of the website and probably because:
even by create new myMatch, the new myMatch doesn't not inherit the player_red and player_blue variable from their original Match instance.
Are there any possible workarounds? Thanks.
Notes on "partial solution":
Please note that the code snippets posted below only show "some alternatives which may or may not provide enough to get by". This is because they don't capture the values (Player objects) within the constructor, but only wrap the values going inside.
A "full solution" might also wrap the Player constructor and use a property or other mechanism to "remember" the objects created for different input values; alternatively, it could remember object creation order. This could then be used to wrap Match and then extract the created Players from the shared store after the Match constructor had run -- those details, however, are left as an exercise. The Player wrapping code can utilize the code presented below (assuming Player is a global/accessible property).
The exact request is not possible given the above context.
Variables (real variables, not properties) can only be accessed from the scope they are declared in or a nested scope as they are resolved through scope chains. This also includes usage of eval. While this may seem like a limitation, it also ensures that scope chains (and their variables) can't be externally mucked with unless exposed.
However, consider this fun approach, which utilizes the fact that an explicit object can be returned from a Constructor:
var oldMatch = Match
// note this form, else above would be pre-clobbered
Match = function Match (playerRed, playerBlue) {
var m = new oldMatch(playerRed, playerBlue)
// either "inject" method here, or save in object for later
m.myPlayerRed = playerRed
m.myPlayerBlue = playerBlue
return m
}
Of course, this will break things like new Match(...) instanceof Match.
Happy coding.
Update:
Here is a modification of the above to work with the "wrap the constructor in a new constructor and then set the prototypes equal" method as discussed in the link in the post. The trick is "stealing" the global properties name. I have also altered the code to keep oldMatch "private" to avoid pollution.
// note this form, else Match property would be pre-clobbered
Match = (function (oldMatch) {
function Match (playerRed, playerBlue) {
oldMatch.call(this, playerRed, playerBlue);
// either "inject" method here, or save in object for later
this.myPlayerRed = playerRed
this.myPlayerBlue = playerBlue
}
Match.prototype = oldMatch.prototype
return Match
})(Match)
Unlike the first code snippet, this should work with new Match(...) instanceof Match, but it may still break depending upon particular assumptions made within the Match object methods.
Example of how to invert ("extract") data from Player constructor:
// original -- remember this method will only work
// if Player is used as a property (and not itself a closure'd variable)
function Player (name) {
this.name = name
}
Player = (function (oldPlayer) {
function Player (name) {
oldPlayer.call(this, name)
var fn = arguments.callee
fn.recent = fn.recent || []
fn.recent.push([name, this])
}
Player.prototype = oldPlayer.prototype
return Player
})(Player)
var p1 = new Player("fred");
var p2 = new Player("barney");
alert("instanceof check? " + p1 instanceof Player)
alert("name check? " + ("barney" == p2.name))
alert(Player.recent.join(","))
Player.recent = [] // reset