I just started to learn about javascript etc, and I get a project from my friend to take a look at it, and what I saw there is that they are using javascript functions all the time as a function expression, like this:
var a = function(Id) {
//Do something here
}
I could say like ok, they'r working like that and I'm gonna work like that also like robot, even if I don't understand why is that like that..
So I'm wondering what is this acctually, (in that code I posted above) is that function called "a" which is expecting 1 argument called "Id" in our case so I could call it on click of some button for example, or maybe this var a is acctually variable which is called "a" but it might be called as a function and acctually it is a javascript function?
This is little bit confusing me here, and I saw in this project that almost all javascrit functions are used like this, but is this a right approach or they should use named functions expression so it might look like this:
var a = function myFunction(Id) {
//Do something here
}
So what is this now ? I created function called myFunction which is expecting 1 argument called "Id" and it could be called on click by myFunction and also by calling "a" varible ? (if it is variable, or it is also function name or whatever)..
Thanks guys
Cheers
The key to understanding this is that, in JavaScript, functions are data, just like any other. So, if you are ok understanding this:
var x = 10;
If you were to try to get the value of x, you'd get 10:
console.log(x);
Then, understanding this isn't that much of a stretch:
var x = function(){
// do something
}
if you were to try to get the value here, you'd get the actual text of the function:
console.log(x); // function(){ // do something }
Since this last version retrieves a function, you could then invoke the function by simply appending () to the returned value, like this:
x(); // This would invoke the function stored in x
The alternative approach is with a "function declaration" which looks like this:
function x(){
// Do something
}
Here, there is no variable storing the function...x is the function and to invoke it, you'd do it directly:
x();
However, in JavaScript, all declarations are "hoisted" to the top of their enclosing scope, so this:
var x = function(){};
would cause the declaration of x to be hoisted, but not the value of x, while this:
function x(){ ...};
would cause the entire declaration to be hoisted.
The difference is that a declaration would allow you to invoke the function in code the precedes the actual declaration (since hoisting would cause the function to be read first) and with an expression, if you tried this, you would get an error stating that x is not a function.
Here's an example of this:
// Print the return value from runing the function who's name is "x".
// This will succeed even though we haven't even declared the function x yet becuase all
// declarations are hoisted to the top of their enclosing scope;
console.log(x());
// Print the return value from runing the function stored in the variable called "y":
// This will fail with an error stating that y is not a function because only the variable
// declaration (var y) is hoisted to the top of the enclosing scope, but not the value assigned to it.
console.log(y());
// This is a function "declaration" for a function who's name is "x"
function x(){
return "hello from function declaration x";
}
// This is a function expression being assigned as the data for a variable
var y = function(){
return "hello from function expression y";
}
Both are useful and often interchangeable, but hoisting causes differences in how (and when) you can call the function.
Related
I have a question about this code below:
function myfunc () {
return 2 + 2;
}
console.log(myfunc);
Does anyone know why, when we log 'myfunc' to the console, we get the entire function itself back? Or in other words, is 'myfunc' acting as a variable that holds the function's contents, or is it just referencing that function?
Because if I go ahead & add this to the code...
myfunc = undefined; //or any other value like myfunc = 20;
...then since myfunc's value is changed, I can no longer use it to invoke the function. So what is 'myfunc' really?
The answer is yes, a function declaration creates a symbol in the local function scope (or global scope if the declaration is in that context) that works exactly like a variable declared with var (though function declarations are hoisted above var declarations).
Now, a function expression like this:
var x = function helloWorld() { return "hello world"; };
does not create a local "helloWorld" symbol (except when it does). The value of a function expression is a reference to the created function, and that can be assigned to a variable just like any other value.
Is there any reason to think one of these methods is better or worse than the other?
function func1(x,y,z){
//do something with x,y,z
}
var x,y;
if (CONDITION){
var z;
}
// method1
if (z) {
func1(x,y,z);
}
the first method checks for z, then calls x,y,z to a function
function func2(x,y,z){
if (z){
//do something with x,y,z
}
}
var x,y;
if (CONDITION){
var z;
}
// method2
func2(x,y,z);
the second just calls the function with x,y,z knowing z is potentially undefined then checks z
edit ...
in the comments i was able to parse out what else i am asking...
... am i setting myself up for a bad time in the future should the interpreter choose to handle the undefined property differently... meaning is this an exploit, or is being able to send functions undefined variables a feature
if performance is your primary concern, as suggested by the title, I'd expect method 1 to be better. Testing z for truthiness is probably less expensive than making a function call, so you avoid the call when z is undefined. But if you want to be sure, go to jsperf.com and test it.
my concern is more with how javascript will deal with the undefineds
Consider the following (which is only visible in strict mode, hence IIFE pattern)
// A
(function () {
"use strict";
function foo(bar) {console.log('foobard');}
foo(z);
}()); // ReferenceError: z is not defined
// B
(function () {
"use strict";
var z;
function foo(bar) {console.log('foobard');}
foo(z);
}()); // foobard
// C
(function () {
"use strict";
if (false) {
var z;
}
function foo(bar) {console.log('foobard');}
foo(z);
}()); // foobard
You'll see that even if the var is inside the code block of an if that never gets it's contents executed, that var still gets applies to the names there (they'll be left undefined if they were set though). Therefore, worrying about how JavaScript will deal with the undefined is not a problem in your current pattern, which uses var for all the names before trying to reference them.
The parameter names of a function can be thought of as like another var line before the rest of the function's body, so if a parameter is named, even if undefined is passed of the function is invoked with fewer arguments than named parameters, they will not cause reference errors.
The additonnal function call should technically be more expensive in the second example, but I'm guessing that the difference is insignificant.
Also, there's nothing wrong in passing a potentially undefined value to a function. It all depends on your use cases. If it makes sense to encapsulate that undefined check in the function itself, let it be.
Finally, all variable declarations will be hoisted at the top of their scope even if they appear at other places in the code. Basically, as long as you are only declaring a variable, but not initializing it, there's no difference if you put the declaration in a if statement or not.
In the first snippet below, based on my understanding I am creating a function and assigning it to a variable. But does that mean the function will take that name of the variable ?
var aFunc = function(){};
I know this is named function.
function bFunc(){};
So, first of all we have to clarify the main difference between the two functions you wrote.
This one:
var aFunc = function(){};
is a function expression. Where this one:
function bFunc(){};
is a function declaration.
In a function expression you're using the function operator to defines a function inside an expression.
When you declare a function you're using the function statement.
At the beginning it can be confusing because they're really similar, however function declaration and function expression behaves differently. First of all, you can't declare a function that is anonymous: if you're using a function statement, the name is mandatory.
So only functions defined with the function operator can be anonymous:
var aFunc = function(){};
That's an anonymous function. In some browsers you can actually print the function's name and see by yourself:
console.log(aFunc.name);
(Notice that this is not standard yet, but there is a proposal)
But it doesn't means that functions declared with the function operator have to be anonymous. For instance:
var aFunc = function myFunction() {};
It's a named function. However, that's still different from having a function declaration like that:
function myFunction() {};
var aFunc = myFunction;
Why? Because in case of function expression, you don't declare a myFunction function in the scope:
var aFunc = function myFunction() {};
console.log(typeof myFunction) // undefined, unless some bugs
So what's the point to give a name to a function expression? The answer is: to have access from that function from the function's body itself, without pollute the scope. Imaging for instance you want to add an event listener to a DOM node, but execute the listener only once:
document.body.addEventListener("click", function onclick() {
// do something
document.body.removeEventListener("click", onclick, false);
}, false);
So you don't pollute the scope with a lot of functions that you use only for purpose like that ones, and you can still have access to the function from the function's body. That's especially useful in ES5 where arguments.callee is deprecated, and for recursion.
Another difference between function expression is that you can invoke them immediately, but you can't do that for function declaration. So, for instance:
function() {
console.log('foo');
}();
Will throw an exception, because the engine can't understand if it's a function declaration or a function expression. But if you force the engine to look at it as an expression:
!function() {
console.log('foo');
}();
// or
(function(){
console.log('foo');
}());
// etc, there are a lot of ways
Here we are: JS understand is an expression, therefore threats the function as an operator and not as a statement. And you obtain the IIFE (Immediately-Invoked Function Expression), that are useful in a lot of scenarios, specially where you want to isolate code.
So, back to you question, why the name of this function:
var aFunc = function(){};
is not aFunc?
Because, it's an expression. So the value knows nothing about the assignment on the left. It's like having:
var aFunc = -3;
Where the - is the Unary Negation operation and the 3 is the value: they knows nothing about aFunc, right? It's exactly the same with function expression, where function is the operator, and (){} is the value.
No.
In the first example you are creating an anonymous function and then assigning it to "aFunc"
In the second example you declare a function and call it bFunc.
The most notable difference between the two is that you can't call "aFunc" until after the line where you assign it.
No, the function will not "take the name of the variable". The variable will hold a reference to an anonymous function. The function itself is still anonymous.
Note that this makes little difference in the end though, this function reference can be treated exactly the same as any regular named function once it's assigned. In fact, it makes so little difference, a named function can be treated like a variable holding a function reference too:
function foo() { }
foo();
foo = 'bar';
alert(foo); // bar
The term "anonymous function" is jargon, so likely what it means will change over time. There is no specification that states what it is, so it can be whatever you want it to be. And whatever you decide will likely be disputed by someone else. Jargon is like that (look up the word "trunking", a common jargon term in telephony).
Strictly, there are function declarations where the name is mandatory, e.g.
function foo() {
...
}
and function expressions where the name is optional. If the name is missing, e.g.:
var x = function () {
...
};
then that, to me, is an anonymous function. If it has a name, e.g.
var x = function foo() {
...
};
then it's a named function expression (and not an anonymous function). From my perspective, any function expression without an optional name is an anonymous function. There are many uses for function expressions, e.g.
// assignment to a variable
var x = function() {...}
// pass as a parameter
foo(function(){...})
// immediately executed and pass the result
foo( (function(){...}()) )
and so on. So in the OP, the right hand side of the assignment is a function expression with no name so to me, that's an anonymous function. The fact that it's then assigned to an identifier doesn't suddenly make it a named function expression.
Others may differ of course.
Incidentally, the results of:
function foo(){}
and
var foo = function(){};
are practically indistinguishable, the main difference is when the functions are created.
No it is not. The right hand side of your first statement is a Function Expression. It is anonymous as long as you don't assign it to a variable.
After you have assigned it, you can use it as a declared function.
See more details about function declarations in this question
As far as I know, function foo() { aaa(); } is just var foo = function(){ aaa() } in JavaScript. So adding function foo() { bbb(); } should either overwrite the foo variable, or ignore the second definition - that's not the point. The point is that there should be one variable foo.
So, in this example the me variable should not be correctly resolved from inside the methods and it is not in Explorer 8 :-). I came to this example by trying to wrap them into another closure where (var) me would be, but I was surprised that it's not necessary:
var foo = {
bar1 : function me() {
var index = 1;
alert(me);
},
bar2 : function me() {
var index = 2;
alert(me);
}
};
foo.bar1(); // Shows the first one
foo.bar2(); // Shows the second one
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/W5dqy/5/
AFAIK function foo() { aaa(); } is just var foo = function(){ aaa() } in JavaScript.
Not quite; they're similar, but also quite different. JavaScript has two different but related things: Function declarations (your first example there), and function expressions (your second, which you then assign to a variable). They happen at different times in the parsing cycle and have different effects.
This is a function declaration:
function foo() {
// ...
}
Function declarations are processed upon entry into the enclosing scope, before any step-by-step code is executed.
This is a function expression (specifically, an anonymous one):
var foo = function() {
// ...
};
Function expressions are processed as part of the step-by-step code, at the point where they appear (just like any other expression).
Your quoted code is using a named function expression, which look like this:
var x = function foo() {
// ...
};
(In your case it's within an object literal, so it's on the right-hand side of an : instead of an =, but it's still a named function expression.)
That's perfectly valid, ignoring implementation bugs (more in a moment). It creates a function with the name foo, doesn't put foo in the enclosing scope, and then assigns that function to the x variable (all of this happening when the expression is encountered in the step-by-step code). When I say it doesn't put foo in the enclosing scope, I mean exactly that:
var x = function foo() {
alert(typeof foo); // alerts "function" (in compliant implementations)
};
alert(typeof foo); // alerts "undefined" (in compliant implementations)
Note how that's different from the way function declarations work (where the function's name is added to the enclosing scope).
Named function expressions work on compliant implementations. Historically, there were bugs in implementations (early Safari, IE8 and earlier). Modern implementations get them right, including IE9 and up. (More here: Double take and here: Named function expressions demystified.)
So, in this example the me variable shoudl not be corectly resolved from inside the methods
Actually, it should be. A function's true name (the symbol between function and the opening parenthesis) is always in-scope within the function (whether the function is from a declaration or a named function expression).
NOTE: The below was written in 2011. With the advances in JavaScript since, I no longer feel the need to do things like the below unless I know I'm going to be dealing with IE8 (which is very rare these days).
Because of implementation bugs, I used to avoid named function expressions. You can do that in your example by just removing the me names, but I prefer named functions, and so for what it's worth, here's how I used to write your object:
var foo = (function(){
var publicSymbols = {};
publicSymbols.bar1 = bar1_me;
function bar1_me() {
var index = 1;
alert(bar1_me);
}
publicSymbols.bar2 = bar2_me;
function bar2_me() {
var index = 2;
alert(bar2_me);
}
return publicSymbols;
})();
(Except I'd probably use a shorter name than publicSymbols.)
Here's how that gets processed:
An anonymous enclosing function is created when the var foo = ... line is encountered in the step-by-step code, and then it is called (because I have the () at the very end).
Upon entry into the execution context created by that anonymous function, the bar1_me and bar2_me function declarations are processed and those symbols are added to the scope inside that anonymous function (technically, to the variable object for the execution context).
The publicSymbols symbol is added to the scope inside the anonymous function. (More: Poor misunderstood var)
Step-by-step code begins by assigning {} to publicSymbols.
Step-by-step code continues with publicSymbols.bar1 = bar1_me; and publicSymbols.bar2 = bar2_me;, and finally return publicSymbols;
The anonymous function's result is assigned to foo.
These days, though, unless I'm writing code I know needs to support IE8 (sadly, as I write this in November 2015 it still has significant global market share, but happily that share is plummetting), I don't worry about it. All modern JavaScript engines understand them just fine.
You can also write that like this:
var foo = (function(){
return {
bar1: bar1_me,
bar2: bar2_me
};
function bar1_me() {
var index = 1;
alert(bar1_me);
}
function bar2_me() {
var index = 2;
alert(bar2_me);
}
})();
...since those are function declarations, and thus are hoisted. I don't usually do it like that, as I find it easier to do maintenance on large structures if I do the declaration and the assignment to the property next to each other (or, if not writing for IE8, on the same line).
Both me lookups, are only visible/available inside the function expression.
Infact those two are named function expressions, and the ECMAscript specification tells us, that the name of an expression is not exposed to the such called Variable object.
Well I tried to put that only in a few words, but while trying to find the right words, this ends up in pretty deep chain of ECMAscript behavior. So, function expression are not stored in a Variable / Activation Object. (Would lead to the question, who those guys are...).
Short: Every time a function is called, a new Context is created. There is some "blackmagic" kind of guy that is called, Activation object which stores some stuff. For instance, the
arguments of the function
the [[Scope]]
any variables created by var
For instance:
function foo(test, bar) {
var hello = "world";
function visible() {
}
(function ghost() {
}());
}
The Activation Object for foo would look like:
arguments: test, bar
variables: hello (string), visible (function)
[[Scope]]: (possible parent function-context), Global Object
ghost is not stored in the AO! it would just be accesssible under that name within the function itself. While visible() is a function declaration (or function statement) it is stored in the AO. This is because, a function declaration is evaluated when parsing and function expression is evaluated at runtime.
What happens here is that function() has many different meanings and uses.
When I say
bar1 : function me() {
}
then that's 100% equivalent to
bar1 : function() {
}
i.e. the name doesn't matter when you use function to assign the variable bar1. Inside, me is assigned but as soon as the function definition is left (when you assign bar2), me is created again as a local variable for the function definition that is stored in bar2.
I'm a bit confused. What is the purpose of the parameters when you initiate an anonymous member pattern designated below:
(function (<ParameterA>) {
})(<ParameterB>);
I understand that Parameter A is used to designate the scope of the function is this true?
Is ParameterB where you export the function?
Finally, I often see script indicating the following:
})(jQuery || myfunc);
Does that mean they're exporting these or returning these objects? And what's the point of using the two pipes (||); It a field goal thing?
Thanks in advance. Looking forward to interesting discussion.
Parameter A does not designate the scope of the function. The function's position determines the scope of the function. ParameterB is not where you export the function. In fact, the way this is set up, there is no pointer to the function anywhere which makes it an "anonymous function." In other words, as is, the function itself is un-exportable. Usually when you talk about exporting things, you're talking about exporting variables that you defined inside anonymous functions. For example, here I am exporting the function my_inner_function from an anonymous function.
(function (<ParameterA>) {
// export this function here.
window.my_inner_function = function() {
...
};
})(<ParameterB>);
Usually, the point of anonymous functions is that you have all kinds of variables that you don't want to export because you don't want to possibly muck with other code.
(function (<ParameterA>) {
// convert could be defined somewhere else too, so to be on the safe side
// I will hide it here in my anonymous function so nobody else can
// reference it.
var convert = function() {
...
};
})(<ParameterB>);
This is particularly important when you compress your Javascript and get function names like a and b.
(function (<ParameterA>) {
// So compressed!
var a = function() {
...
};
})(<ParameterB>);
(function () {
// Another compressed thing! Good thing these are hidden within anonymous
// functions, otherwise they'd conflict!
var a = function() {
...
};
})();
Now this
(function (<ParameterA>) {
})(<ParameterB>);
is the same thing as
// Assume ParameterB is defined somewhere out there.
(function () {
var ParameterA = ParameterB;
})();
Which gives you an idea why you'd use the parameters. You may find the parameter approach less confusing, or you may want to make it clear that you don't want to affect "by value" variables such as numbers and strings.
As others have pointed out, a || b is spoken as "a or b" and means "a if a evaluates to true, otherwise b, no matter what b is."
Edit
To answer your question, when you get to })(); the () causes the anonymous function to run. Remember that Javascript engines will first parse all code to make sure the syntax is correct, but won't actually evaluate/execute any code until it reaches that code. Hence, it's when the anonymous function runs that var ParameterA = ParameterB; gets evaluated. Here are some examples that hopefully help.
var ParameterB = "hello";
(function () {
var ParameterA = ParameterB;
// alerts "hello" because when this line is evaluated ParameterB is still
// "hello"
alert(ParameterA);
})(); // () here causes our anonymous function to execute
ParameterB = "world";
Now in this example, the function is no longer anonymous because it has
a pointer. However, it acts the same as the previous example.
var ParameterB = "hello";
var myFunction = function () {
var ParameterA = ParameterB;
// alerts "hello" because when this line is evaluated ParameterB is still
// "hello"
alert(ParameterA);
};
myFunction();
ParameterB = "world";
In this example, I change the order of the last 2 lines and get different
results.
var ParameterB = "hello";
var myFunction = function () {
var ParameterA = ParameterB;
// alerts "world" because when this line is evaluated ParameterB has
// already changed.
alert(ParameterA);
};
// notice that I moved this line to occur earlier.
ParameterB = "world";
myFunction();
The code block above executes an anonymous function immediately after declaring it.
ParameterA is a parameter to the anonymous function you are declaring
ParameterB is the value you are passing to ParameterA
So the function you declared will be executed immediately, passing ParameterB as the value for ParameterA.
The jQuery || myFunc block means this: use jQuery as the argument unless it is not defined, in which case use myFunc.
Edit:
This is often used when defining jQuery plugins to avoid conflicts with the $ variable if multiple javascript libraries are being used. So you would make your plugin definition a function that accepts $ as a parameter, which you would execute immediately, passing jQuery as the value to $.
Example (from jQuery docs):
(function( $ ){
$.fn.myPlugin = function() {
// Do your awesome plugin stuff here
};
})( jQuery );
The result of the above code block will be a plugin definition where you are guaranteed that $ will be an alias for jQuery.
For parts 1 and 2, ParameterA could be used to alias a nested hierarchy. (ie: YAHOO.util.Event passed in as ParameterB, can be used as "e" in ParameterA.) That way, inside the anonymous function, you wouldn't be typing out the full namespace path. [I know you're a jquery guy, but the yahoo namespace is longer, and illustrates the point better :)] Alternatively, you could just manually store the reference in a var inside the function.
the jquery || myFunc syntax is shorthand for "use jquery if it is truthy/available, or myFunc if it is not".
It's sort of like var toUse = jQuery !== undefined ? jQuery : myFunc;
This is because javascript allows falsy value evaluation without converting the objects fully to a boolean. ie: undefined is falsy, "" is falsy, null is falsy.
The alternative can be used to detect if a method or property is even available with &&.
ie: var grandParent = person && person.parent && person.parent.parent;
This will only be defined if the person has a parent, and their parent has a parent. Any failure along the && leading up to the last statement will result in grandParent being undefined.
Lastly, the parens around the || shortcut syntax are basically executing the function immediately after the declaration, passing the evaluated value into the anonymous function.
ie: (function(a, b) { return a + b; })(2,3)
Will immediately execute and return 5. In practice, this anonymous function execution could be used with the module pattern to establish a set of public methods which use private functions that themselves do not appear in the page's namespace. This is more in depth than your original question, but you can check out this article for more information: http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/module-pattern/
ParameterA is referencing the value passed in at ParameterB. This:
(function (<ParameterA>) {
})(<ParameterB>);
Is sort of the same as this:
function test(<ParameterA>) {
}
test(<ParameterB>);
The difference is that this way you are using a closure to not have conflicting functions in the global namespace.
For the second part: the || work sort of like param = jQuery ? jQuery : myFunc. It passes in jQuery if it is defined, or myFunc if it isn't.
With your first part:
(function (<ParameterA>) {
})(<ParameterB>);
This means that the variable known as ParameterB outside the function will be known as ParameterA inside the function. This is known as a self-executing function, because the function is called as soon as it is defined. It means that you can use ParameterA inside the function without overriding a variable that exists outside the function.
For instance:
(function($){
})(jQuery);
This means that you can have $ as, for instance, Mootools outside the function and as jQuery inside it.
With your second part:
})(jQuery || myfunc);
This calls the function passing the jQuery variable if it exists, and myfunc if it does not. I don't quite know why you'd do this...