In this code, the callback function receives the scope of the new Thing object (as the commend shows, Thing is logged.) Use of an arrow function causes it to log the window object.
I'd like to be able to access the scope of the literal object in that callback function, ideally without referring to it from the global object. Is there some way to do this?
function Thing(fun){
this.funThing = fun
}
let literal = {
thing: new Thing(function(){
console.log(this)
})
}
literal.thing.funThing() // Thing {funThing: ƒ}
You could use a getter instead, main difference here would be that upon each access the thing would be recreated, but well, that you could overcome in a different way ;)
And yes, I changed it to an arrow function here, but I could have bound the callback function as well
function Thing(fun){
this.funThing = fun
}
let literal = {
get thing() {
return new Thing(() => {
console.log(this)
});
}
}
literal.thing.funThing()
Solution of lcepickle works fine. Another way is to bind the callback function with the literal object, but in this case you have to define it before calling new Thing constructor. So, you can add the thing attribute after the definition of literal object:
function Thing(fun){
this.funThing = fun
}
let literal = { }
literal.thing = new Thing(function(){
console.log(this)
}.bind(literal))
literal.thing.funThing()
You could bind the anonymous callback function to the scope of the literal object.
function Thing(fun){
this.funThing = fun
}
literal = {
thing: new Thing(function(){
console.log(this)
}.bind(this.literal))
}
literal.thing.funThing()
Related
Below I am creating an object in JavaScript. Within the constructor I am setting up an event listener. The problem is that when the event gets fired, this.prop cannot be found, and undefined prints out. How do I solve this?
var someObj = function someObj(){
this.prop = 33;
this.mouseMoving = function() { console.log(this.prop);}
document.getElementById("someDiv").addEventListener('mousemove', this.mouseMoving, true);
}
When the event handler gets called, "this" no longer references the "someObj" object. You need to capture "this" into a local variable that the mouseMoving function will capture.
var someObj = function someObj(){
this.prop = 33;
var self = this;
this.mouseMoving = function() { console.log(self.prop);}
document.getElementById("someDiv").addEventListener('mousemove', this.mouseMoving, true);
}
I'm assuming "someObj is a constructor, i.e. intended to be called with as new someObj(), otherwise "this" will be the global scope.
The "this" keyword can be confusing in JavaScript, because it doesn't work the same way as in other languages. The key thing to remember is that it is bound to the calling object when the function is called, not when the function is created.
The javascript built-in Function.prototype.bind() is intended for this purpose.
For example:
var someObj = function someObj(){
this.prop = 33;
this.mouseMoving = function() { console.log(this.prop);}
document.getElementById("someDiv").addEventListener('mousemove', this.mouseMoving.bind(this),true);
}
More on the bind method here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
Other wise you have to pass a reference of the object someObj to the element and use that reference in the line:
console.log(this.referenceToObject.prop); //this references the DOM element in an event.
From Section 4.3 of JavaScript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford:
Invoking a function suspends the
execution of the current function,
passing control and parameters to the
new function. In addition to the
declared parameters, every function
receives two additional parameters:
this and arguments. The this parameter
is very important in object oriented
programming, and its value is
determined by the invocation pattern.
There are four patterns of invocation
in JavaScript: the method invocation
pattern, the function invocation
pattern, the constructor invocation
pattern, and the apply invocation
pattern. The patterns differ in how
the bonus parameter this is
initialized.
Crockford continues to explains the binding of 'this' in each of these patterns, as follows:
The Method Invocation Pattern:
When a function is stored as a property of an object, we call it a method. When a method is invoked, this is bound to that object.
The Function Invocation Pattern:
When a function is invoked with this pattern, this is bound to the global object. This was a mistake in the design of the language.
The Constructor Invocation Pattern:
If a function is invoked with the new prefix, then a new object will be created with a hidden link to the value of the function's prototype member, and this will be bound to that new object.
The Apply Invocation Pattern:
The apply method lets us construct an array of arguments to use to invoke a function. It also lets us choose the value of this. The apply method takes two parameters. The first is the value that should be bound to this. The second is an array of parameters.
You could use a variable named 'me', to avoid conflict with the global JavaScript variable 'self':
function someObj() {
var me = this;
this.prop = 33;
this.mouseMoving = function() {
alert(me.prop);
}
document.getElementById("someDiv").addEventListener('mousemove', this.mouseMoving, true);
}
First, you need to understand how 'this' works in JavaScript. 'this' keyword doesn't behave how it behaves in other languages like C# or Java. Read following post to understand more,
What is the rationale for the behavior of the 'this' keyword in JavaScript?
Once you understand that, as Matthew outlined in his code, you can save reference to 'this' and use that reference inside the mouseMoving function.
Though overall, I will advise that you use a JavaScript framework (e.g. jQuery, YUI, MooTools) which will take care of these issues for you. E.g. In Internet Explorer, you use addEvent to attach event and not addEventListenr.
You have some typos on your function declaration.
Your prop variable is also defined as a "public" or "visible" member (by using this.prop), doing so forces you to store the reference of this from the outer function (that is actually a reference to the object instance), as a "private" member of the function (using var) to get access the instance of the created object and read the "public" prop member.
You have some alternatives to rewrite this code:
function someObj (){
var self = this;
this.prop = 33;
this.mouseMoving = function() { alert(self.prop);} // You access the current
// instance, stored in *self*
// since *this*, inside the
// function, is in another
// context.
//...
}
var mySomeObj = new someObj(); // Object instantiation
Or you could:
function someObj (){
var prop = 33;
this.mouseMoving = function() { alert(prop);}
//...
}
var mySomeObj = new someObj(); // Object instantiation
The variables declared with var, are accesible to the functions declared inside of the major constructor function, this feature is known as Closures.
The following successfully prints 'foo'.
var obj = {
name: 'foo',
printName: function printName() {
console.log(this.name);
}
};
var printButton= document.getElementById('printIt');
printButton.addEventListener('click', function(){
obj.printName();
});
The following doesn't, however:
printButton.addEventListener('click', obj.printName() );
I know the solution... simply use bind so that we're referencing the obj object. i.e:
printButton.addEventListener('click', obj.printName.bind(obj) );
Why then don't we need to use bind in the first example. I don't know why wrapping obj.printName() function call in the anonymous function results in the console.log correctly referencing and printing this properly, but when called directly after click, you needs to use bind
Alright, I commented with some good information on this question so I might as well answer!
Functions are first class
Okay, let's starts with some fundamentals of javascript that is very dissimilar to some other programming languages: in javascript functions are first class citizens--which is just a fancy way of saying that you can save functions into variables and you can pass functions into other functions.
const myFunction = function () { return 'whoa a function'; }
array.map(function () { return x + 1; });
And because of this wonderful feature, there is a big difference between the expressions:
Expression 1
obj.printName
and
Expression 2
obj.printName();
In expression 1: the function isn't being invoked so the value of the expression is of type function
In expression 2: the function is being invoked so the value of the expression is what the function returns. In your case, that's undefined
addEventListener
The method addEventListener takes in two arguments:
a string of the type of event
a function that will be run when the event fires.
Alight, so what does that mean?
When you call
// doesn't work
printButton.addEventListener('click', obj.printName() );
you're not passing a value of type function to the addEventListener method, you're actually passing undefined.
// works
printButton.addEventListener('click', obj.printName.bind(obj) );
then works (for one reason) because the second argument is actually of type function.
What does bind do? Why does it return a function?
Now we need to discuss what bind actually does. It related to the pointer* this.
*by pointer, I mean a reference identifier to some object
bind is a method that exists on every function object that simply binds the this pointer of a desired object to the function
This is best shown by an example:
Say you have a class Fruit that has a method printName. Now that we know that you can save a method into a variable, let's try that. In the example below we're assigning two things:
boundMethod which used bind
unboundMethod that didn't use bind
class Fruit {
constructor() {
this.name = 'apple';
}
printName() {
console.log(this.name);
}
}
const myFruit = new Fruit();
// take the method `printName`
const boundMethod = myFruit.printName.bind(myFruit);
const unboundMethod = myFruit.printName;
boundMethod(); // works
unboundMethod(); // doesn't work
So what happens when you don't call bind? Why doesn't that work?
If you don't call bind in this case, the value of the function that gets stored into the identifier unboundMethod can be thought to be:
// doens't work
const unboundMethod = function() {
console.log(this.name);
}
where the contents of the function is the same contents of the method printName from the Fruit class. Do you see why this is an issue?
Because the this pointer is still there but the object it was intended to refer to is no longer in scope. When you try to invoke the unboundMethod, you'll get an error because it couldn't find name in this.
So what happens when you do use bind?
Loosely bind can be thought of as replacing the this value of function with the object you're passing into bind.
So if I assign: myFruit.printName.bind(myFruit) to boundMethod then you can think of the assignment like this:
// works
const boundMethod = function() {
console.log(myFruit.name);
}
where this is replaced with myFruit
The bottom-line/TL;DR
when to use bind in an Event Handler
You need to use Function.prototype.bind when you want to replace the thises inside the function with another object/pointer. If your function doesn't ever use this, then you don't need to use bind.
Why then don't we need to use bind in the first example?
If you don't need to "take the method" (i.e. taking the value of type of function), then you don't need to use bind either Another way to word that is: if you invoke the method directly from the object, you don't need bind that same object.
In the wrapper function, you're directly invoking the method of the object (as in expression 2). Because you're invoking the method without "taking the method" (we "took" the methods into variables in the Fruit example), you don't need to use bind.
printButton.addEventListener('click', function(){
// directly invoke the function
// no method "taking" here
obj.printName();
});
Hope this helps :D
Note: You need to call printButton.addEventListener('click', obj.printName() ); without parenthesis in obj.printName() since you want to pass the function.
The answer lies in the way this is bound in Javascript. In JS, the way a function is called decides how this is bound. So when you provide the callback function like below:
printButton.addEventListener('click', function(){
obj.printName();
});
Notice, printName is being called via dot notation. This is called implicit binding rule when this is bound to an object before dot, in this case obj. Clearly in this case, you get the expected output.
However, when you call it like this:
printButton.addEventListener('click', obj.printName );
Notice that, all you are passing is the address of the function that is inside obj. So in this case info about obj is lost. In other words, the code that calls back the function doesn't have the info about obj that could have been used to set this. All it has is the address of the function to call.
Hope this helps!
EDIT:
Look at this crude implementation I call bind2 that mimics native bind. This is just to illustrate how native bind function returns a new function.
Function.prototype.bind2 = function (context) {
var callBackFunction = this;//Store the function to call later
return function () { //return a new function
callBackFunction.call(context);//Later when called, apply
//context, this is `obj` passed
//in bind2()
}
};
function hello() {
alert(this.name);
}
obj = {
name:'ABC'
};
var f = hello.bind2(obj);
f();
Notice: How function f() is hard bound here. f() has hard bound this with obj. You cannot change this to other than obj now. This is another thing with bind that probably will help you knowing.
The Facts
Function('return this')() always returns the global (window) object. Function.bind({})('return this')() returns the global object too.
My Goals
I want to create a variation of Function. The anonymous functions returned by calling that variation of Function should always use myObj as this.
If JavaScript wouldn't behave in that special way (see The Facts), I would do the following:
var myFun = Function.bind(myObj);
myFun is the object that I want to own. Now I would be able to do the following:
console.assert(myObj === myFun('return this')());
My Questions
Why is Function returning global, even after .bind()ing it to another object?
Is there a workaround? How can I bind Function to another object?
Thanks.
You are essentially doing this:
Function.call({}, 'return this;')();
The Function function is executed in the context of a new anonymous object. Doing this does not affect the context of the functions generated by Function. It turns out that Function doesn't care what context it runs in -- it always produces functions that have the default global context.
If you want to specify the context of the functions generated by Function, you want to wrap Function like this:
// give our vars privacy in a closure
(function() {
// store old Function
var oldFunc = Function;
// redefine Function to be a wrapper around the real Function
// which takes an additional `context` argument
Function = function(ftext, context) {
return oldFunc(ftext).bind(context);
}
}());
Now you can call Function('return this', myObj)(); and it will return myObj.
Or, to simply create your suggested myFun(text) syntax which passes your assert test:
var myFun = function(ftext) {
return Function(ftext).bind(myObj);
}
I don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve, but it seems that your method chaining is in the wrong order.
Function('return this').bind({})() // returns the empty Object
function bb_graphics_GraphicsContext(){
Object.call(this);
this.bbdevice=null;
this.bbmatrixSp=0;
this.bbix=1.000000;
this.bbiy=0;
this.bbjx=0;
this.bbjy=1.000000;
this.bbtx=0;
this.bbty=0;
this.bbtformed=0;
this.bbmatDirty=0;
this.bbcolor_r=0;
this.bbcolor_g=0;
this.bbcolor_b=0;
this.bbalpha=0;
this.bbblend=0;
this.bbscissor_x=0;
this.bbscissor_y=0;
this.bbscissor_width=0;
this.bbscissor_height=0;
this.bbmatrixStack=new_number_array(192);
}
What does Object.call(this) mean?
Functions in JavaScript are full-fledged objects. They also, when passed as an argument to another function, don't retain their scope. So, in the following code...
var obj1 = {
property1: "blah",
method1: function () {
alert(this.property1);
// do stuff
}
};
function func1 (passedFunction) {
passedFunction();
// do other stuff
}
func1(obj1.method1);
... func1 will call obj1.method1, but it won't alert the value of obj1's property1, because all we've done is pass the function object, not its this context. That's where call and apply come in. They allow you to inject scope, tell the function what the meaning of this will be. The following example works:
var obj1 = {
property1: "blah",
method1: function () {
alert(this.property1);
// do stuff
}
};
function func1 (passedObject, passedFunction) {
passedFunction.call(passedObject);
// do other stuff
}
func1(ob1, obj1.method1);
Now, we've forced or explicitly told obj1.method1 what its context will by invoking call, and passing it the object it's to use as this.
call and apply are almost identical, except for how they handle additional arguments to the function being invoked. See these articles on MDN for more information: call, apply and Function.
All of this having been said, bb_graphics_GraphicsContext is a constructor. (Which you've probably guessed.) You invoke it by using the new keyword, var obj1 = new bb_graphics_GraphicsContext();. When it reaches line 1 of the function, it takes the this object, and calls the generic Object constructor, explicitly injecting the new object this (in the bb_graphics_GraphicsContext constructor) as the this of the Object constructor. I'd assume the writer of this function/constructor was doing this to make sure that the newly created object in bb_graphics_GraphicsContext was getting all the base methods of the base Object. But I don't know why this would be necessary, as if you call bb_graphics_GraphicsContext with the new keyword it will grab all these properties naturally.
Object.call will execute a certain function under the provided context, it can be used to call functions from one object on an other.
The mozilla dev network provides a very good explanation
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/call
This will do absolutely nothing except wasting resource and memory allocation.
If the Object.call(this) will have been assigned to a variable or property of the function constructor bb_graphics_GraphicsContext
this.myObject = Object.call(this)
The only thing that you get in that instance is an empty object "THAT DO NO HOLD THE PROVIDED CONTEXT"
function MyConstructor(){
this.test01 = 0;
var b = Object.call(this); // similar to b = {}; or b = new Object()
console.log(b); // log object
console.log(b.test); // log undefined
this.test = 1;
}
var myObject = new MyConstructor();
console.log(myObject, window.test01)
Although Object.call will probably do nothing as expressed here, the concept might be important. Basically, the example you will see on inheritance in the Node.js documentation is:
const util = require('util');
const EventEmitter = require('events');
function MyStream() {
EventEmitter.call(this);
}
util.inherits(MyStream, EventEmitter);
The util.inherits will make a new MyStream inherit (have the same prototype as) EventEmmiter. This could be enough if we are interested in MyStream having access to the functions inherited through the EventEmmiter prototype. But what if there are variables passed on construction? What if we have:
function MyObject() {
this.code = "2nV_ahR";
}
In this case, the code variable is passed on runtime when MyObject gets instantiated. Therefore, a subclass needs to pass:
function MySubObject() {
MyObject.call(this);
}
In order to inherit the code variable. What call does accept a parameter that sets the this variable. So... when I do var o = new MySubObject(), the this inside of MySubObject refers to o, which is then passed to the call method, so that when MyObject does this.code = ... it is actually passing the code to o!
Every JavaScript function has a toString(), call() and apply().
Read more about them on this odetocode.com article
Consider the following code:
function A() {}
A.prototype.go = function() {
console.log(this); //A { go=function()}
var f = function() {
console.log(this); //Window
};
f();
}
var a = new A();
a.go();
Why does 'this' inside function 'f' refers to the global scope? Why it is not the scope of function 'A' ?
JavaScript has a different concept of what the special name this refers to
than most other programming languages do. There are exactly five different
ways in which the value of this can be bound in the language.
The Global Scope
this;
When using this in global scope, it will simply refer to the global object.
Calling a Function
foo();
Here, this will again refer to the global object.
ES5 Note: In strict mode, the global case no longer exists.
this will instead have the value of undefined in that case.
Calling a Method
test.foo();
In this example, this will refer to test.
Calling a Constructor
new foo();
A function call that is preceded by the new keyword acts as
a constructor. Inside the function, this will refer
to a newly created Object.
Explicit Setting of this
function foo(a, b, c) {}
var bar = {};
foo.apply(bar, [1, 2, 3]); // array will expand to the below
foo.call(bar, 1, 2, 3); // results in a = 1, b = 2, c = 3
When using the call or apply methods of Function.prototype, the value of
this inside the called function gets explicitly set to the first argument
of the corresponding function call.
As a result, in the above example the method case does not apply, and this
inside of foo will be set to bar.
Note: this cannot be used to refer to the object inside of an Object
literal. So var obj = {me: this} will not result in me referring to
obj, since this only gets bound by one of the five listed cases.
Common Pitfalls
While most of these cases make sense, the first one is to be considered another
mis-design of the language because it never has any practical use.
Foo.method = function() {
function test() {
// this is set to the global object
}
test();
}
A common misconception is that this inside of test refers to Foo; while in
fact, it does not.
In order to gain access to Foo from within test, it is necessary to create a
local variable inside of method which refers to Foo.
Foo.method = function() {
var that = this;
function test() {
// Use that instead of this here
}
test();
}
that is just a normal variable name, but it is commonly used for the reference to an
outer this. In combination with closures, it can also
be used to pass this values around.
Assigning Methods
Another thing that does not work in JavaScript is function aliasing, which is
assigning a method to a variable.
var test = someObject.methodTest;
test();
Due to the first case, test now acts like a plain function call; therefore,
this inside it will no longer refer to someObject.
While the late binding of this might seem like a bad idea at first, in
fact, it is what makes prototypal inheritance work.
function Foo() {}
Foo.prototype.method = function() {};
function Bar() {}
Bar.prototype = Foo.prototype;
new Bar().method();
When method gets called on a instance of Bar, this will now refer to that
very instance.
Disclaimer: Shamelessy stolen from my own resources at http://bonsaiden.github.com/JavaScript-Garden/#function.this
The reason why is you are invoking f as a function and not a method. When invoked as a function this is set to window during the execution of the target
// Method invocation. Invoking a member (go) of an object (a). Hence
// inside "go" this === a
a.go();
// Function invocation. Invoking a function directly and not as a member
// of an object. Hence inside "f" this === window
f();
// Function invocation.
var example = a.go;
example();
The scope of all functions is window.
To circumvent that, you can do this:
function A() {}
A.prototype.go = function() {
var self = this;
console.log(self); //A { go=function()}
var f = function() {
console.log(self); //A { go=function()}
};
f();
}
Because function f() is not called without any object reference. Try,
f.apply(this);