Related
I'm beginner, so this question might be silly.
I had to do 4 Javascript Function, I will put them below
function Square(a) {
b=a*a;
return b;
}
//2.Functia Half//
function Half(a) {
b=a/2;
return b;
}
//3.Functia Percent//
function Percent(a,b) {
procent=a/b*100;
return procent + "%";
}
//4.Functia Area//
function Area(a) {
pi=3.14;
circlearea=a*a*pi;
final=circlearea.toFixed(0);
return final;
}
Now i have to create the last function, which does:
Applies Half function on the parameter I've given to the new function(a), stores is in a new variable(result), result becomes parameter for the function square, the result will be stored again in a new variable(resultSquare), resultSquare will be used in Area function and stored in a new variable(resultArea). In the end, I need percent function, to find out the percent of resultArea from resultSquare. I tried like this, but no luck:
function new function{
result=Half(a);
return result;
resultSquare=Square(result);
return resultSquare;
}
It just returns result variable and does nothing else. Can you help? Thank you in advance.
You can't return something twice. Once you return something, it breaks out of the function. Remove the first return result; statement and it should work.
Also why are you doing
function new function { }
The proper syntax is
function [Function Name](parameters) { }
The result exits the function - so anything after a return statement will not be run. You need to return the last item:
function newFunction(a) {
var result = Half(a);
var resultSquare = Square(a);
var resultArea = Area(a);
return Percent(resultSquare, resultArea);
}
I'm using a JavaScript spy library,
simple-spy.
I've found out that when spying on a given function,
the resulting spy always has an arity of 0.
This creates a problem with my use of
this currying function.
So I've submitted a pull-request
that adds arity transparency to
the spy library.
The code looks like this:
function spy(fn) {
const inner = (...args) => {
stub.callCount++;
stub.args.push(args);
return fn(...args);
};
// ends up a string like
// 'a,b,c,d'
// depending on the `fn.length`
const stubArgs = Array(fn.length)
.fill(null)
.map((m, i) => String.fromCodePoint(97 + i))
.join();
const stubBody = 'return inner(...arguments);';
// this seems to be the only way
// to create a function with
// programmatically specified arity
const stub = eval(
// the wrapping parens is to
// prevent it from evaluating as
// a function declaration
`(function (${stubArgs}) { ${stubBody} })`
);
stub.reset = () => {
stub.callCount = 0;
stub.args = [];
};
stub.reset();
return stub;
}
exports.spy = spy;
This seems to work.
Is it possible to do this
without the use of eval?
Is it possible to
reduce the use of eval
to even less that this?
I'm aware that there are other issues
with this spy implementation.
It is simplistic and it works
for my use case so far.
Like Benjamin wrote, I used a simple:
function spy(fn) {
const stub = (...args) => {
stub.callCount++;
stub.args.push(args);
return fn(...args);
};
stub.reset = () => {
stub.callCount = 0;
stub.args = [];
};
stub.reset();
Object.defineProperty(stub, 'length', {value: fn.length});
return stub;
}
exports.spy = spy;
Much, much better looking.
This question already has an answer here:
Double-Queue Code needs to be reduced
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
Is there any way for me to shorten this code by using pointers?
I need to make a class that has mostly the same function as a given array class unshift,shift,push and pop but with different names.
var makeDeque = function()
{
var a= [], r=new Array(a);
length = r.length=0;
pushHead=function(v)
{
r.unshift(v);
}
popHead=function()
{
return r.shift();
}
pushTail=function(v)
{
r.push(v);
}
popTail=function()
{
return r.pop();
}
isEmpty=function()
{
return r.length===0;
}
return this;
};
(function() {
var dq = makeDeque();
dq.pushTail(4);
dq.pushHead(3);
dq.pushHead(2);
dq.pushHead("one");
dq.pushTail("five");
print("length " + dq.length + "last item: " + dq.popTail());
while (!dq.isEmpty())
print(dq.popHead());
})();
Output should be
length 5last item: five
one
2
3
4
Thanks!
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but why not just add the extra methods you need to the Array prototype and call it directly?
I need to make a class that has mostly the same function as a given array class unshift,shift,push and pop but with different names.
I suppose you could add these "new" methods to Array.prototype.
Like this perhaps?
var makeDeque = (function (ap) {
var Deque = {
length: 0,
pushHead: ap.unshift,
popHead: ap.shift,
pushTail: ap.push,
popTail: ap.pop,
isEmpty: function () {
return !this.length;
}
};
return function () {
return Object.create(Deque);
};
})(Array.prototype);
DEMO
If it's still too long, you can always directly augment Array.prototype like others already mentionned. We agree that it's all experimental here and the only goal is to save characters.
!function (ap) {
ap.pushHead = ap.unshift;
ap.popHead = ap.shift;
ap.pushTail = ap.push;
ap.popTail = ap.pop;
ap.isEmpty = function () {
return !this.length;
};
}(Array.prototype);
function makeDeque() {
return [];
}
This can be compressed to 174 chars:
function makeDeque(){return[]}!function(e){e.pushHead=e.unshift;e.popHead=e.shift;e.pushTail=e.push;e.popTail=e.pop;e.isEmpty=function(){return!this.length}}(Array.prototype)
DEMO
Not sure why you need this, but my suggestions per best practice are:
Don't override the Array.prototype. The reason for this is because other libraries might try to do the same, and if you include these libraries into yours, there will be conflicts.
This code is not needed. var a= [], r=new Array(a);. You only need ...a = [];.
Ensure you are creating a real class. In your code, makeDeque is not doing what you want. It is returning this which when a function is not called with the new keyword will be the same as the window object (or undefined if you are using what is called as "strict mode"). In other words, you have made a lot of globals (which are usually a no-no, as they can conflict with other code too).
When you build a class, it is good to add to the prototype of your custom class. This is because the methods will only be built into memory one time and will be shared by all such objects.
So I would first refactor into something like this:
var makeDeque = (function() { // We don't need this wrapper in this case, as we don't have static properties, but I've kept it here since we do want to encapsulate variables in my example below this one (and sometimes you do need static properties).
function makeDeque () {
if (!(this instanceof makeDeque)) { // This block allows you to call makeDeque without using the "new" keyword (we will do it for the person using makeDeque)
return new makeDeque();
}
this.r = [];
this.length = 0;
}
makeDeque.prototype.setLength = function () {
return this.length = this.r.length;
};
makeDeque.prototype.pushHead=function(v) {
this.r.unshift(v);
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.popHead=function() {
return this.r.shift();
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.pushTail=function(v){
this.r.push(v);
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.popTail=function() {
return this.r.pop();
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.isEmpty=function() {
return this.r.length === 0;
};
return makeDeque;
}());
Now you could shorten this as follows, but I wouldn't recommend doing this, since, as it was well said by Donald Knuth, "premature optimization is the root of all evil". If you try to shorten your code, it may make it inflexible.
var makeDeque = (function() {
function makeDeque () {
if (!(this instanceof makeDeque)) {
return new makeDeque();
}
this.r = [];
this.length = 0;
}
makeDeque.prototype.setLength = function () {
return this.length = this.r.length;
};
for (var i=0, methodArray = [
['pushHead', 'unshift'], ['popHead', 'shift'], ['pushTail', 'push'], ['popTail', 'pop']
]; i < methodArray.length; i++) {
makeDeque.prototype[methodArray[i][0]] = (function (i) { // We need to make a function and immediately pass in 'i' here because otherwise, the 'i' inside this function will end up being set to the value of 'i' after it ends this loop as opposed to the 'i' which varies with each loop. This is a common "gotcha" of JavaScript
return function () {
var ret = this.r[methodArray[i][1]].apply(this.r, arguments);
this.setLength();
return ret;
};
}(i));
}
makeDeque.prototype.isEmpty=function() {
return this.r.length === 0;
};
return makeDeque;
}());
If you need to get the length by a length property, as opposed to a method like setLength() which sets it manually after each update, either of the above code samples could be shortened by avoiding the setLength() method, but you'd need to use the Object.defineProperty which does not work (or does not work fully) in older browsers like IE < 9.
Let's say I have var a = function() { return 1; }. Is it possible to alter a so that a() returns 2? Perhaps by editing a property of the a object, since every function is an object?
Update: Wow, thanks for all the responses. However, I'm afraid I wasn't looking to simply reassign a variable but actually edit an existing function. I am thinking along the lines of how you can combine partial functions in Scala to create a new PartialFunction. I am interested in writing something similar in Javascript and was thinking that the existing function could perhaps be updated, rather than creating an entirely new Function object.
You can do all kinds of fun stuff with javascript, including redefining functions:
let a = function() { return 1; }
console.log(a()); // 1
// keep a reference
let old = a;
// redefine
a = function() {
// call the original function with any arguments specified, storing the result
const originalResult = old.apply(old, arguments);
// add one
return originalResult + 1;
};
console.log(a()); // 2
Voila.
Edit: Updated to show this in a crazier scenario:
let test = new String("123");
console.log(test.toString()); // logs 123
console.log(test.substring(0)); // logs 123
String.prototype.substring = function(){ return "hahanope"; }
console.log(test.substring(0)); // logs hahanope
You can see here that even though "test" is defined first, and we redefine substring() afterwards, the change still applies.
Side note: you really should reconsider your architecture if you're doing this...you're going to confuse the crap out of some poor developer 5 years down the road when s/he's looking at a function definition that's supposed to return 1, but seems to always return 2....
So you want to modify the code of a function directly, in place, and not just reassign a different function to an existing variable.
I hate to say it, but as far as I have been able to figure it out - and I have tried -, it can't be done. True, a function is an object, and as such it has methods and properties which can be tweaked and overwritten on the object itself. Unfortunately, the function body is not one of them. It is not assigned to a public property.
The documentation on MDN lists the properties and methods of the function object. None of them gives us the opportunity to manipulate the function body from the outside.
That's because according to the spec, the function body is stored in the internal [[Code]] property of the function object, which can't be accessed directly.
I used something like this to modify an existing function whose declaration was not accessible to me:
// declare function foo
var foo = function (a) { alert(a); };
// modify function foo
foo = new Function (
"a",
foo.toSource()
.replace("alert(a)", "alert('function modified - ' + a)")
.replace(/^function[^{]+{/i,"") // remove everything up to and including the first curly bracket
.replace(/}[^}]*$/i, "") // remove last curly bracket and everything after<br>
);
Instead of toSource() you could probably use toString() to get a string containing the function's declaration. Some calls to replace() to prepare the string for use with the Function Constructor and to modify the function's source.
let a = function() { return 1; }
console.log(a()) // 1
a = function() { return 2; }
console.log(a()) // 2
technically, you're losing one function definition and replacing it with another.
How about this, without having to redefine the function:
var a = function() { return arguments.callee.value || 1; };
alert(a()); // => 1
a.value = 2;
alert(a()); // => 2
I am sticking to jvenema's solution, in which I don't like the global variable "old". It seems better to keep the old function inside of the new one:
function a() { return 1; }
// redefine
a = (function(){
var _a = a;
return function() {
// You may reuse the original function ...
// Typical case: Conditionally use old/new behaviour
var originalResult = _a.apply(this, arguments);
// ... and modify the logic in any way
return originalResult + 1;
}
})();
a() // --> gives 2
All feasible solutions stick to a "function wrapping approach".
The most reliable amongst them seems to be the one of rplantiko.
Such function wrapping easily can be abstracted away. The concept / pattern itself might be called "Method Modification". Its implementation definitely belongs to Function.prototype. It would be nice to be backed
one day by standard prototypal method modifiers like before, after, around, afterThrowing and afterFinally.
As for the aforementioned example by rplantiko ...
function a () { return 1; }
// redefine
a = (function () {
var _a = a;
return function () {
// You may reuse the original function ...
// Typical case: Conditionally use old/new behaviour
var originalResult = _a.apply(this, arguments);
// ... and modify the logic in any way
return originalResult + 1;
};
})();
console.log('a() ...', a()); // --> gives 2
.as-console-wrapper { min-height: 100%!important; top: 0; }
... and making use of around, the code would transform to ...
function a () { return 1; }
console.log('original a ...', a);
console.log('a() ...', a()); // 1
a = a.around(function (proceed, handler, args) {
return (proceed() + 1);
});
console.log('\nmodified a ...', a);
console.log('a() ...', a()); // 2
.as-console-wrapper { min-height: 100%!important; top: 0; }
<script>
(function(d){function f(a){return typeof a==e&&typeof a.call==e&&typeof a.apply==e}function g(a,b){b=null!=b&&b||null;var c=this;return f(a)&&f(c)&&function(){return a.call(b||null!=this&&this||null,c,a,arguments)}||c}var e=typeof d;Object.defineProperty(d.prototype,"around",{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:g});Object.defineProperty(d,"around",{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:function(a,b,c){return g.call(a,b,c)}})})(Function);
</script>
This is a Clear Example based on a control timepicker eworld.ui
www.eworldui.net
Having a TimePicker eworld.ui where JavaScript is unreachable from outside, you can't find any js related to those controls. So how can you add a onchange event to the timepicker ?
There is a js function called when you Select a time between all the options that the control offer you. This function is: TimePicker_Up_SelectTime
First you have to copy the code inside this function.
Evaluate...quikwatch...TimePicker_Up_SelectTime.toString()
function TimePicker_Up_SelectTime(tbName, lblName, divName, selTime, enableHide, postbackFunc, customFunc) {
document.getElementById(tbName).value = selTime;
if(lblName != '')
document.getElementById(lblName).innerHTML = selTime;
document.getElementById(divName).style.visibility = 'hidden';
if(enableHide)
TimePicker_Up_ShowHideDDL('visible');
if(customFunc != "")
eval(customFunc + "('" + selTime + "', '" + tbName + "');");
eval(postbackFunc + "();");
}
Now
Using the code that you have saved before reassign the same source code but add whatever you want..
TimePicker_Up_SelectTime = function (tbName, lblName, divName, selTime, enableHide, postbackFunc, customFunc) {
document.getElementById(tbName).value = selTime;
if (lblName != '')
document.getElementById(lblName).innerHTML = selTime;
document.getElementById(divName).style.visibility = 'hidden';
if (enableHide)
TimePicker_Up_ShowHideDDL('visible');
if (customFunc != "")
eval(customFunc + "('" + selTime + "', '" + tbName + "');");
eval(postbackFunc + "();");
>>>>>>> My function >>>>> RaiseChange(tbName);
}
I've added My Function to the function so now I can simulate an onchange event when I select a time.
RaiseChange(...) could be whatever you want.
If you're debugging javascript and want to see how changes to the code affects the page, you can use this Firefox extension to view/alter javascripts:
Execute JS firefox extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1729
You can change functions like other objects
var a1 = function(){return 1;}
var b1 = a1;
a1 = function(){
return b1() + 1;
};
console.log(a1()); // return 2
// OR:
function a2(){return 1;}
var b2 = a2;
a2 = function(){
return b2() + 1;
};
console.log(a2()); // return 2
Can you not just define it again later on? When you want the change try just redefining it as:
a = function() { return 2; }
const createFunction = function (defaultRealization) {
let realization = defaultRealization;
const youFunction = function (...args) {
return realization(...args);
};
youFunction.alterRealization = function (fn) {
realization = fn;
};
return youFunction;
}
const myFunction = createFunction(function () { return 1; });
console.log(myFunction()); // 1
myFunction.alterRealization(function () { return 2; });
console.log(myFunction()); // 2
I'm writing a global error handling "module" for one of my applications.
One of the features I want to have is to be able to easily wrap a function with a try{} catch{} block, so that all calls to that function will automatically have the error handling code that'll call my global logging method. (To avoid polluting the code everywhere with try/catch blocks).
This is, however, slightly beyond my understanding of the low-level functioning of JavaScript, the .call and .apply methods, and the this keyword.
I wrote this code, based on Prototype's Function.wrap method:
Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
TryCatchWrap: function() {
var __method = this;
return function() {
try { __method.apply(this, arguments) } catch(ex) { ErrorHandler.Exception(ex); }
}
}
});
Which is used like this:
function DoSomething(a, b, c, d) {
document.write(a + b + c)
alert(1/e);
}
var fn2 = DoSomething.TryCatchWrap();
fn2(1, 2, 3, 4);
That code works perfectly. It prints out 6, and then calls my global error handler.
My question is: will this break something when the function I'm wrapping is within an object, and it uses the "this" operator? I'm slightly worried since I'm calling .apply, passing something there, I'm afraid this may break something.
Personally instead of polluting builtin objects I would go with a decorator technique:
var makeSafe = function(fn){
return function(){
try{
return fn.apply(this, arguments);
}catch(ex){
ErrorHandler.Exception(ex);
}
};
};
You can use it like that:
function fnOriginal(a){
console.log(1/a);
};
var fn2 = makeSafe(fnOriginal);
fn2(1);
fn2(0);
fn2("abracadabra!");
var obj = {
method1: function(x){ /* do something */ },
method2: function(x){ /* do something */ }
};
obj.safeMethod1 = makeSafe(obj.method1);
obj.method1(42); // the original method
obj.safeMethod1(42); // the "safe" method
// let's override a method completely
obj.method2 = makeSafe(obj.method2);
But if you do feel like modifying prototypes, you can write it like that:
Function.prototype.TryCatchWrap = function(){
var fn = this; // because we call it on the function itself
// let's copy the rest from makeSafe()
return function(){
try{
return fn.apply(this, arguments);
}catch(ex){
ErrorHandler.Exception(ex);
}
};
};
Obvious improvement will be to parameterize makeSafe() so you can specify what function to call in the catch block.
2017 answer: just use ES6. Given the following demo function:
function doThing(){
console.log(...arguments)
}
You can make your own wrapper function without needing external libraries:
function wrap(someFunction){
function wrappedFunction(){
var newArguments = [...arguments]
newArguments.push('SECRET EXTRA ARG ADDED BY WRAPPER!')
console.log(`You're about to run a function with these arguments: \n ${newArguments}`)
return someFunction(...newArguments)
}
return wrappedFunction
}
In use:
doThing('one', 'two', 'three')
Works as normal.
But using the new wrapped function:
const wrappedDoThing = wrap(doThing)
wrappedDoThing('one', 'two', 'three')
Returns:
one two three SECRET EXTRA ARG ADDED BY WRAPPER!
2016 answer: use the wrap module:
In the example below I'm wrapping process.exit(), but this works happily with any other function (including browser JS too).
var wrap = require('lodash.wrap');
var log = console.log.bind(console)
var RESTART_FLUSH_DELAY = 3 * 1000
process.exit = wrap(process.exit, function(originalFunction) {
log('Waiting', RESTART_FLUSH_DELAY, 'for buffers to flush before restarting')
setTimeout(originalFunction, RESTART_FLUSH_DELAY)
});
process.exit(1);
Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
Object.extend in the Google Chrome Console gives me 'undefined'
Well here's some working example:
Boolean.prototype.XOR =
// ^- Note that it's a captial 'B' and so
// you'll work on the Class and not the >b<oolean object
function( bool2 ) {
var bool1 = this.valueOf();
// 'this' refers to the actual object - and not to 'XOR'
return (bool1 == true && bool2 == false)
|| (bool1 == false && bool2 == true);
}
alert ( "true.XOR( false ) => " true.XOR( false ) );
so instead of
Object.extend(Function.prototype, {...})
Do it like:
Function.prototype.extend = {}
Function wrapping in good old fashion:
//Our function
function myFunction() {
//For example we do this:
document.getElementById('demo').innerHTML = Date();
return;
}
//Our wrapper - middleware
function wrapper(fn) {
try {
return function(){
console.info('We add something else', Date());
return fn();
}
}
catch (error) {
console.info('The error: ', error);
}
}
//We use wrapper - middleware
myFunction = wrapper(myFunction);
The same in ES6 style:
//Our function
let myFunction = () => {
//For example we do this:
document.getElementById('demo').innerHTML = Date();
return;
}
//Our wrapper - middleware
const wrapper = func => {
try {
return () => {
console.info('We add something else', Date());
return func();
}
}
catch (error) {
console.info('The error: ', error);
}
}
//We use wrapper - middleware
myFunction = wrapper(myFunction);
Here is an ES6 style:
const fnOriginal = (a, b, c, d) => {
console.log(a);
console.log(b);
console.log(c);
console.log(d);
return 'Return value from fnOriginal';
};
const wrapperFunction = fn => {
return function () {
try {
const returnValuFromOriginal = fn.apply(this, arguments);
console.log('Adding a new line from Wrapper :', returnValuFromOriginal);
} catch (ex) {
ErrorHandler.Exception(ex);
}
};
};
const fnWrapped = wrapperFunction(fnOriginal);
fnWrapped(1, 2, 3, 4);
The following wrapping utility takes a function and enables the developer to inject a code or wrap the original:
function wrap(originalFunction, { inject, wrapper } = {}) {
const wrapperFn = function(...args) {
if (typeof inject === 'function') {
inject(originalFunction, this);
}
if (typeof wrapper === 'function') {
return wrapper(originalFunction, this, args);
}
return originalFunction.apply(this, args);
};
// copy the original function's props onto the wrapper
for(const prop in originalFunction) {
if (originalFunction.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
wrapperFn[prop] = originalFunction[prop];
}
}
return wrapperFn;
}
Usage example:
// create window.a()
(function() {
const txt = 'correctly'; // outer scope variable
window.a = function a(someText) { // our target
if (someText === "isn't") {
throw('omg');
}
return ['a', someText, window.a.c, txt].join(' ');
};
window.a.c = 'called'; // a.c property example
})();
const originalFunc = window.a;
console.log(originalFunc('is')); // logs "a is called correctly"
window.a = wrap(originalFunc);
console.log(a('is')); // logs "a is called correctly"
window.a = wrap(originalFunc, { inject(func, thisArg) { console.log('injected function'); }});
console.log(a('is')); // logs "injected function\na is called correctly"
window.a = wrap(originalFunc, { wrapper(func, thisArg, args) { console.log(`doing something else instead of ${func.name}(${args.join(', ')})`); }});
console.log(a('is')); // logs "doing something else instead of a(is)"
window.a = wrap(originalFunc, {
wrapper(func, thisArg, args) {
try {
return func.apply(thisArg, args);
} catch(err) {
console.error('got an exception');
}
}
});
a("isn't"); // error message: "got an exception"
The last example demonstrates how to wrap your function with a try-catch clause
As far as polluting the namespaces, I'm actually going to pollute them some more...
Since everything that happens in JS is initiated by an event of some kind, I'm planning to call my magical wrapper function from within the Prototype Event.observe() method, so I don't need to call it everywhere.
I do see the downsides of all this, of course, but this particular project is heavily tied to Prototype anyway, and I do want to have this error handler code be as global as possible, so it's not a big deal.
Thanks for your answer!