We Keep Coding

Javascript: Cannot call method of undefined

This may be a common error, but I can't find another way of doing this. I'm creating a timeline showing multiple projects using timeline.js with the following code
function createTimeline(){
for(var length = data.section.length,i = 0; i < length; i++){
var divWrapper = document.createElement("div");
if(i != data.section.length - 1)
divWrapper.setAttribute('class','timelineWrapper');
$('body').append(divWrapper);
layer[i] = new links.Timeline(divWrapper);
links.events.addListener(layer[i], 'rangechange',
function(){
var that = this;
var range = layer[i].getVisibleChartRange();
for (var j = 0; j < layer.length; j++){
if(j != i){
layer[j].setVisibleChartRange(range.start, range.end);
}
}
}
);
layer[i].draw(data.section[i].project, options);
}
}
It gives the error Cannot call method 'getVisibleChartRange' of undefined .
What is the problem here? Why is layer[i] undefined? It is not being detected during the event rangechange itself.

You must bind i within a closure to save its value for your addListener call, as i is undefined when the function in your addListener later gets called. Try replacing the third argument of your addListener call with the below:
(function(i) {
return function() {
var that = this;
var range = layer[i].getVisibleChartRange();
// Rest of code
};
}(i)); // Anonymous function binds i in a closure

The issue is caused because the unnamed function used as event handler uses its parent scope's i variable.
At the end of your loop, i==data.section.length in this scope.
This is also the i value for all your events handlers. Because of this, layer[i] is undefined, and this is causing the error message.
The easiest way to address this issue is to create a functionBuilder function taking i as parameter and returning a new function (your handler).
In this returned handler's direct parent's scope, i value will be the parameter you passed to the functionBuilder function.
I'll post some code example later today, as soon as I have access to a pc (no way I can type that from a tablet :o) )
EDIT: I've been too slow... mc10 posted more or less what I wanted to post :o)
In case you don't understand why this works, or what closures, scopes or bind means, here is an old but complete explanation:
http://blog.niftysnippets.org/2008/02/closures-are-not-complicated.html

Javascript Function Scoped For Loops

Here's an example of a situation where a simple JS loop does not behave as expected, because of the loop variable not being in a separate scope.
The solution often presented is to construct an unpleasant-looking bit of loop code that looks like this:
for (var i in obj) {
(function() {
... obj[i] ...
// this new shadowed i here is now no longer getting changed by for loop
})(i);
}
My question is, could this be improved upon? Could I use this:
Object.prototype.each = function (f) {
for (var i in this) {
f(i,this[i]);
}
};
// leading to this somewhat more straightforward invocation
obj.each(
function(i,v) {
... v ...
// alternatively, v is identical to
... obj[i] ...
}
);
when I ascertain that I need a "scoped loop"? It is somewhat cleaner looking and should have similar performance to the regular for-loop (since it uses it the same way).
Update: It seems that doing things with Object.prototype is a huge no-no because it breaks pretty much everything.
Here is a less intrusive implementation:
function each (obj,f) {
for (var i in obj) {
f(i,obj[i]);
}
}
The invocation changes very slightly to
each(obj,
function(i,v) {
... v ...
}
);
So I guess I've answered my own question, if jQuery does it this way, can't really go wrong. Any issues I've overlooked though would warrant an answer.

Your answer pretty much covers it, but I think a change in your original loop is worth noting as it makes it reasonable to use a normal for loop when the each() function isn't handy, for whatever reason.
Update: Changed to use an example that's similar to the example referenced by the question to compare the different approaches. The example had to be adjusted because the each() function requires a populated array to iterate over.
Assuming the following setup:
var vals = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'],
max = vals.length,
closures = [],
i;
Using the example from the question, the original loop ends up creating 2n functions (where n is the number of iterations) because two functions are created during each iteration:
for (i = 0; i < max; i++) {
closures[i] = (function(idx, val) { // 1st - factoryFn - captures the values as arguments
return function() { // 2nd - alertFn - uses the arguments instead
alert(idx + ' -> ' + val); // of the variables
};
})(i, vals[i]);
}
This can be reduced to creating only n + 1 functions by creating the factory function once, before the loop is started, and then reusing it:
var factoryFn = function(idx, val) {
return function() {
alert(idx + ' -> ' + val);
};
};
for (i = 0; i < max; i++) {
closures[i] = factoryFn(i, vals[i]);
}
This is nearly equivalent to how the each() function might be used in this situation, which would also result in a total of n + 1 functions created. The factory function is created once and passed immediately as an argument to each().
each(vals, function(idx, val) {
closures[idx] = function() {
alert(idx + ' -> ' + val);
};
});
FWIW, I think a benefit to using each() is the code is a bit shorter and creating the factory function right as it's passed into the each() function clearly illustrates this is its only use. A benefit of the for loop version, IMO, is the code that does the loop is right there so it's nature and behavior is completely transparent while the each() function might be defined in a different file, written by someone else, etc.

Global Scope
When something is global means that it is accessible from anywhere in your code. Take this for example:
var monkey = "Gorilla";
function greetVisitor () {
return alert("Hello dear blog reader!");
}
If that code was being run in a web browser, the function scope would be window, thus making it
available to everything running in that web browser window.
Local Scope
As opposed to the global scope, the local scope is when something is just defined and accessible in a
certain part of the code, like a function. For instance;
function talkDirty () {
var saying = "Oh, you little VB lover, you";
return alert(saying);
}
alert(saying); // Throws an error
If you take a look at the code above, the variable saying is only available within the talkDirty
function. Outside of it it isn’t defined at all. Note of caution: if you were to declare saying without
the var keyword preceding it, it would automatically become a global variable.
What this also means is that if you have nested functions, the inner function will have access to the
containing functions variables and functions:
function saveName (firstName) {
function capitalizeName () {
return firstName.toUpperCase();
}
var capitalized = capitalizeName();
return capitalized;
}
alert(saveName("Robert")); // Returns "ROBERT"
As you just saw, the inner function capitalizeName didn’t need any parameter sent in, but had complete
access to the parameter firstName in the outer saveName function. For clarity, let’s take another
example:
function siblings () {
var siblings = ["John", "Liza", "Peter"];
function siblingCount () {
var siblingsLength = siblings.length;
return siblingsLength;
}
function joinSiblingNames () {
return "I have " + siblingCount() + " siblings:\n\n" + siblings.join("\n");
}
return joinSiblingNames();
}
alert(siblings()); // Outputs "I have 3 siblings: John Liza Peter"
As you just saw, both inner functions have access to the siblings array in the containing function, and
each inner function have access to the other inner functions on the same level (in this case,
joinSiblingNames can access siblingCount). However, the variable siblingsLength in the siblingCount is
only available within that function, i.e. that scope.

Why are objects' values captured inside function calls?

This code is supposed to pop up an alert with the number of the image when you click it:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
You can see it not working at http://jsfiddle.net/upFaJ/. I know that this is because all of the click-handler closures are referring to the same object i, so every single handler pops up "10" when it's triggered.
However, when I do this, it works fine:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
}
You can see it working at http://jsfiddle.net/v4sSD/.
Why does it work? There's still only one i object in memory, right? Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference. The output of the two code snippets should be identical. So why is the i object being copied 10 times? Why does it work?
I think it's interesting that this version doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function () {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
})();
}
It seems that the passing of the object as a function parameter makes all the difference.
EDIT: OK, so the previous example can be explained by primitives (i) being passed by value to the function call. But what about this example, which uses real objects?
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Not working: http://jsfiddle.net/Zpwku/
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
(function (t) {
t.click(function () { t.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(t);
})(toggler);
}
Working: http://jsfiddle.net/YLSn6/

Most of the answers are correct in that passing an object as a function parameter breaks a closure and thus allow us to assign things to functions from within a loop. But I'd like to point out why this is the case, and it's not just a special case for closures.
You see, the way javascript passes parameters to functions is a bit different form other languages. Firstly, it seems to have two ways of doing it depending on weather it's a primitive value or an object. For primitive values it seems to pass by value and for objects it seems to pass by reference.
How javascript passes function arguments
Actually, the real explanation of what javascript does explains both situations, as well as why it breaks closures, using just a single mechanism.
What javascript does is actually it passes parameters by copy of reference. That is to say, it creates another reference to the parameter and passes that new reference into the function.
Pass by value?
Assume that all variables in javascript are references. In other languages, when we say a variable is a reference, we expect it to behave like this:
var i = 1;
function increment (n) { n = n+1 };
increment(i); // we would expect i to be 2 if i is a reference
But in javascript, it's not the case:
console.log(i); // i is still 1
That's a classic pass by value isn't it?
Pass by reference?
But wait, for objects it's a different story:
var o = {a:1,b:2}
function foo (x) {
x.c = 3;
}
foo(o);
If parameters were passed by value we'd expect the o object to be unchanged but:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
That's classic pass by reference there. So we have two behaviors depending on weather we're passing a primitive type or an object.
Wait, what?
But wait a second, check this out:
var o = {a:1,b:2,c:3}
function bar (x) {
x = {a:2,b:4,c:6}
}
bar(o);
Now see what happens:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
What! That's not passing by reference! The values are unchanged!
Which is why I call it pass by copy of reference. If we think about it this way, everything makes sense. We don't need to think of primitives as having special behavior when passed into a function because objects behave the same way. If we try to modify the object the variable points to then it works like pass by reference but if we try to modify the reference itself then it works like pass by value.
This also explains why closures are broken by passing a variable as a function parameter. Because the function call will create another reference that is not bound by the closure like the original variable.
Epilogue: I lied
One more thing before we end this. I said before that this unifies the behavior of primitive types and objects. Actually no, primitive types are still different:
var i = 1;
function bat (n) { n.hello = 'world' };
bat(i);
console.log(i.hello); // undefined, i is unchanged
I give up. There's no making sense of this. It's just the way it is.

It's because you are calling a function, passing it a value.
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
alert(i);
}
You expect this to alert different values, right? Because you are passing the current value of i to alert.
function attachClick(val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
}
With this function, you'd expect it to alert whatever val was passed into it, right? That also works when calling it in a loop:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
attachClick(i);
}
This:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
(function (val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
})(i);
}
is just an inline declaration of the above. You are declaring an anonymous function with the same characteristics as attachClick above and you call it immediately. The act of passing a value through a function parameter breaks any references to the i variable.

upvoted deceze's answer, but thought I'd try a simpler explanation. The reason the closure works is that variables in javascript are function scoped. The closure creates a new scope, and by passing the value of i in as a parameter, you are defining a local variable i in the new scope. without the closure, all of the click handlers you define are in the same scope, using the same i. the reason that your last code snippet doesn't work is because there is no local i, so all click handlers are looking to the nearest parent context with i defined.
I think the other thing that might be confusing you is this comment
Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference.
this is true for objects, but not primitive values (numbers, for example). This is why a new local i can be defined. To demonstrate, if you did something weird like wrapping the value of i in an array, the closure would not work, because arrays are passed by reference.
// doesn't work
for(var i=[0]; i[0]<10; i[0]++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2[0]).click(
function () { alert(i2[0]); }
);
})(i);
}

In the first example, there is only one value of i and it's the one used in the for loop. This, all event handlers will show the value of i when the for loop ends, not the desired value.
In the second example, the value of i at the time the event handler is installed is copied to the i2 function argument and there is a separate copy of that for each invocation of the function and thus for each event handler.
So, this:
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
Creates a new variable i2 that has it's own value for each separate invocation of the function. Because of closures in javascript, each separate copy of i2 is preserved for each separate event handler - thus solving your problem.
In the third example, no new copy of i is made (they all refer to the same i from the for loop) so it works the same as the first example.

Code 1 and Code 3 didn't work because i is a variable and values are changed in each loop. At the end of loop 10 will be assigned to i.
For more clear, take a look at this example,
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
}
alert(i)
http://jsfiddle.net/muthkum/t4Ur5/
You can see I put a alert after the loop and it will show show alert box with value 10.
This is what happening to Code 1 and Code 3.

Run the next example:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
i++;
You'll see that now, 11 is being alerted.
Therefore, you need to avoid the reference to i, by sending it as a function parameter, by it's value. You have already found the solution.

One thing that the other answers didn't mention is why this example that I gave in the question doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Coming back to the question months later with a better understanding of JavaScript, the reason it doesn't work can be understood as follows:
The var toggler declaration is hoisted to the top of the function call. All references to toggler are to the same actual identifier.
The closure referenced in the anonymous function is the same (not a shallow copy) of the one containing toggler, which is being updated for each iteration of the loop.
#2 is quite surprising. This alerts "5" for example:
var o;
setTimeout(function () { o = {value: 5}; }, 100);
setTimeout(function () { alert(o.value) }, 1000);

Javascript scope and calling a function

My code:
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = function () { doStuff(i); };
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'tilesloaded', x);
}
The doStuff method simply alerts the value of i. mapInfos has two entries, so you'd expect it to alert 0 and 1, but instead it alerts 2 and 2. I can appreciate vaguely why it is doing this (although var i should keep it local to the scope of the loop?) but how can I make it work as intended?

edit — note that when first posted, the original question included a link to a jsfiddle that seemed to be a relevant example of what the current question is trying to achieve, only it appears to work ...
The code in the jsfiddle works because there's only one "i" in that code. The "i" used in the second loop (where the functions are actually called) is the same "i" as used in the first loop. Thus, you get the right answer because that second loop is running "i" through all the values from zero through four again. If you added:
i = 100;
functions[0]();
you'd get 100 printed out.
The only way to introduce a new scope in JavaScript is a function. One approach is to write a separate "function maker" function:
function makeCallback(param) {
return function() {
doStuff(param);
};
}
Then in your loop:
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = makeCallback(i);
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'titlesloaded', x);
}
That'll work because the call to the "makeCallback" function isolates a copy of the value of "i" into a new, unique instance of "param" in the closure returned.

Create a new scope for it.
Functions create scope.
function doStuffFactory(i) {
return function () { doStuff(i); };
}
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = doStuffFactory(i);
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'tilesloaded', x);
}

Change it to
var x = function (param) { doStuff(param); };
Obviously what is going on is that you are alerting a variable that is changing. With the above change it copies it so even if i changes it will still alert the right value.

Javascript doesn't have block scope, so you don't get an x that's local to the loop. Yea!
It has function scope, though.

Yep, weird isn't it!Pointy has an explanation
I have no idea why your first example worked (I wasn't expecting it to) Pointy has an explanation of why your first example worked - The reason why your second one doesn't is because i is scoped to the function containing the for loop, not to the scope defined by the for loop. In fact the only things that have scope in JavaScript are functions. This means that by the time your function gets executed i is 2.
What you need to do is create a scope, for example:
for (var i = 0; i < mapInfos.length; i++) {
var x = (function() {
return function () { doStuff(i); };
})(i);
google.maps.event.addListenerOnce(mapInfos[i].map, 'tilesloaded', x);
}
See JavaScript closures in for-loops for more.

JS onclick not firing correctly

I have the following function. The problem is that instead of waiting for the user to click the image as expected, the function immediately fires the imgReplace function for each element in the images array.
Have I done something wrong?
Could the fact I'm using a separate Javascript routine based on Jquery be relevant here?
function setup () {
var images = document.getElementById("mycarousel");
images = images.getElementsByTagName("img");
for (var i = 0; i< images.length; i++) {
images[i].onclick = imgReplace (images[i]);
}
}

Wow I just fixed this embarrassing bug in some of my own code. Everybody else has gotten it wrong:
images[i].onclick = function() {imgReplace(images[i]);};
won't work. Instead, it should be:
images[i].onclick = (function(i) { return function() { imgReplace(images[i]); }; })(i);
Paul Alexander's answer is on the right track, but you can't fix the problem by introducing another local variable like that. JavaScript blocks (like the {} block in the "for" loop) don't create new scopes, which is a significant (and non-obvious) difference from Java or C++. Only functions create scope (setting aside some new ES5 features), so that's why another function is introduced above. The "i" variable from the loop is passed in as a parameter to an anonymous function. That function returns the actual event handler function, but now the "i" it references will be the distinct parameter of the outer function's scope. Each loop iteration will therefore create a new scope devoted to that single value of "i".

Your assigning the result of the call to imageReplace to the onclick handler. Instead wrap the call to imageReplace in it's own function
images[i].click = function(){ imgReplace( images[i] ) }
However, doing so will always replace the last image. You need to create a new variable to enclose the index
for (var i = 0; i< images.length; i++) {
var imageIndex = i;
images[i].onclick = function(){ imgReplace (images[imageIndex]); }
}

What you want to do here is:
images[i].onclick = function() {imgReplace(images[i]);}
try that.
Cheers