JavaScript function declaration hoisting from within loops [duplicate] - javascript

W.r.t Hoisting of fxn definitions.
if (true) {
function foo() {
alert(1)
}
} else {
function foo() {
alert(2)
}
}
foo()
Chrome, some 2-3 months ago - would print 2. Now, it's printing 1. Did I miss something or, did console stop hoisting on fxn's!
DEMO -- prints 1. I'm not sure where to find demo of the older browser version. Probably older v8 engine's node installation?.
Current chrome version - 49

The code you have is invalid in strict mode. Functions don't get hoisted out of blocks (or at least they shouldn't), function declarations inside blocks were completely illegal until ES6. You should write
"use strict";
var foo;
if (true) {
foo = function() {
alert(1)
};
} else {
foo = function() {
alert(2)
};
}
foo()
to get the desired behaviour with reproducible and expected results.
Did I miss something or, did console stop hoisting on fxn's!
Looks like V8 was updated to align with the ES6 spec. It does "hoist" them to the function/top scope, but only when the declaration is actually encountered (in your case, conditionally).

You should avoid using conditionally created functions.
For example, assume the following code:
if (false){
function foo(){
console.log(1)
}
}
foo()
Firefox will not hoist the function and this will result in ReferenceError: foo is not defined. Chrome, however, hoists the function nonetheless and prints 1. So obviously you have deal with different browser behaviour. Therefore, do not do things like that at all (or use function expressions if you really want to).
Also see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/function
Functions can be conditionally declared, that is, a function statement can be nested within an if statement. Most browsers other than Mozilla will treat such conditional declarations as an unconditional declaration and create the function whether the condition is true or not, see this article for an overview. Therefore they should not be used, for conditional creation use function expressions.
Especially look at the linked article which somewhat explains the issue you are seeing. So Chrome seems to have changed something in that regard. But again, do not use conditionally created functions.
And note that, as FREEZE commented, you should use 'use strict'; which would not allow such code but throws an exception instead.

Related

Scoping of function declarations within `with` statements

Preface: Use of with is discouraged in JavaScript for good reason. It can lead to confusing code, and forward compatibility problems (when new properties are added to built-in objects, for example). This question isn't about whether or not with should be used - it's about the spec-defined behavior of with.
Should the following code work?
let foo = {};
with(foo) {
function bar() {
console.log("hello");
}
}
bar();
It works in Chrome 80, but not in Firefox 72: TypeError: bar is not a function.
Edit: Turns out this error only occurs when pasting into the Firefox console (https://i.imgur.com/WTG3iiX.png), not when running the code within a HTML document.
But notice it's a TypeError, and not a ReferenceError (i.e. bar is not defined). To confirm this we can add console.log("bar" in window) before bar();, and notice that outputs true in Firefox, whereas if you write that before the code it outputs false. So in Firefox the above code has the effect of setting window.bar to undefined.
This works fine in both Firefox and Chrome:
if(true) {
function bar() {
console.log("hello");
}
}
bar();
Just as I'd have expected, since a function foo() {...} declaration is function scoped. So unless there's something weird about with block scopes, it seems like this is a Firefox bug?
I haven't been able to reproduce the problem with Firefox 73, so Firefox's behaviour may have changed.
That said, see MDN on the subject of blocks:
In strict mode, starting with ES2015, functions inside blocks are scoped to that block. Prior to ES2015, block-level functions were forbidden in strict mode.
IIRC, the interaction between hoisting rules and blocks was undefined which resulted in different behaviour in different JS engines. This isn't so much a Firefox bug as a bug in the definition of the language itself.
Avoid function declarations in blocks.

Why aren't my function's variables available in my promise's callback? [duplicate]

With this code:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
debugger;
};
bar();
}
baz();
I get this unexpected result:
When I change the code:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
x;
debugger;
};
bar();
}
I get the expected result:
Also, if there is any call to eval within the inner function, I can access my variable as I want to do (doesn't matter what I pass to eval).
Meanwhile, Firefox dev tools give the expected behavior in both circumstances.
What's up with Chrome that the debugger behaves less conveniently than Firefox? I have observed this behavior for some time, up to and including Version 41.0.2272.43 beta (64-bit).
Is it that Chrome's javascript engine "flattens" the functions when it can?
Interestingly if I add a second variable that is referenced in the inner function, the x variable is still undefined.
I understand that there are often quirks with scope and variable definition when using an interactive debugger, but it seems to me that based on the language specification there ought to be a "best" solution to these quirks. So I am very curious if this is due to Chrome optimizing further than Firefox. And also whether or not these optimizations can easily be disabled during development (maybe they ought to be disabled when dev tools are open?).
Also, I can reproduce this with breakpoints as well as the debugger statement.
I've found a v8 issue report which is precisely about what you're asking.
Now, To summarize what is said in that issue report... v8 can store the variables that are local to a function on the stack or in a "context" object which lives on the heap. It will allocate local variables on the stack so long as the function does not contain any inner function that refers to them. It is an optimization. If any inner function refers to a local variable, this variable will be put in a context object (i.e. on the heap instead of on the stack). The case of eval is special: if it is called at all by an inner function, all local variables are put in the context object.
The reason for the context object is that in general you could return an inner function from the outer one and then the stack that existed while the outer function ran won't be available anymore. So anything the inner function accesses has to survive the outer function and live on the heap rather than on the stack.
The debugger cannot inspect those variables that are on the stack. Regarding the problem encountered in debugging, one Project Member says:
The only solution I could think of is that whenever devtools is on, we would deopt all code and recompile with forced context allocation. That would dramatically regress performance with devtools enabled though.
Here's an example of the "if any inner function refers to the variable, put it in a context object". If you run this you'll be able to access x at the debugger statement even though x is only used in the foo function, which is never called!
function baz() {
var x = "x value";
var z = "z value";
function foo () {
console.log(x);
}
function bar() {
debugger;
};
bar();
}
baz();
Like #Louis said it caused by v8 optimizations.
You can traverse Call stack to frame where this variable is visible:
Or replace debugger with
eval('debugger');
eval will deopt current chunk
I've also noticed this in nodejs. I believe (and I admit this is only a guess) that when the code is compiled, if x does not appear inside bar, it doesn't make x available inside the scope of bar. This probably makes it slightly more efficient; the problem is someone forgot (or didn't care) that even if there's no x in bar, you might decide to run the debugger and hence still need to access x from inside bar.
Wow, really interesting!
As others have mentioned, this seems to be related to scope, but more specifically, related to debugger scope. When injected script is evaluated in the developer tools, it seems to determine a ScopeChain, which results in some quirkiness (since it's bound to the inspector/debugger scope). A variation of what you posted is this:
(EDIT - actually, you mention this in your original question, yikes, my bad!)
function foo() {
var x = "bat";
var y = "man";
function bar() {
console.log(x); // logs "bat"
debugger; // Attempting to access "y" throws the following
// Uncaught ReferenceError: y is not defined
// However, x is available in the scopeChain. Weird!
}
bar();
}
foo();
For the ambitious and/or curious, scope (heh) out the source to see what's going on:
https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source/JavaScriptCore/inspector
https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source/JavaScriptCore/debugger
I suspect this has to do with variable and function hoisting. JavaScript brings all variable and function declarations to the top of the function they are defined in. More info here: http://jamesallardice.com/explaining-function-and-variable-hoisting-in-javascript/
I bet that Chrome is calling the break point with the variable unavailable to the scope because there is nothing else in the function. This seems to work:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
console.log(x);
debugger;
};
bar();
}
As does this:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
debugger;
console.log(x);
};
bar();
}
Hope this, and / or the link above helps. These are my favorite kind of SO questions, BTW :)
I seem to have access to _this. Where this is undefined in chrome inspector for me, _this seems to reference the appropriate context (and is probably what's used to as > local > this in the stack trace inspector?).
I know this is a bit old, but my issue was minification using babel - i.e. --presets minify
When my js code was built and minified my local variables were undefined; when not minified I was able to see values of variables in the console.

AngularJs: Uncaught ReferenceError: $scope is not defined in debugger mode [duplicate]

With this code:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
debugger;
};
bar();
}
baz();
I get this unexpected result:
When I change the code:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
x;
debugger;
};
bar();
}
I get the expected result:
Also, if there is any call to eval within the inner function, I can access my variable as I want to do (doesn't matter what I pass to eval).
Meanwhile, Firefox dev tools give the expected behavior in both circumstances.
What's up with Chrome that the debugger behaves less conveniently than Firefox? I have observed this behavior for some time, up to and including Version 41.0.2272.43 beta (64-bit).
Is it that Chrome's javascript engine "flattens" the functions when it can?
Interestingly if I add a second variable that is referenced in the inner function, the x variable is still undefined.
I understand that there are often quirks with scope and variable definition when using an interactive debugger, but it seems to me that based on the language specification there ought to be a "best" solution to these quirks. So I am very curious if this is due to Chrome optimizing further than Firefox. And also whether or not these optimizations can easily be disabled during development (maybe they ought to be disabled when dev tools are open?).
Also, I can reproduce this with breakpoints as well as the debugger statement.
I've found a v8 issue report which is precisely about what you're asking.
Now, To summarize what is said in that issue report... v8 can store the variables that are local to a function on the stack or in a "context" object which lives on the heap. It will allocate local variables on the stack so long as the function does not contain any inner function that refers to them. It is an optimization. If any inner function refers to a local variable, this variable will be put in a context object (i.e. on the heap instead of on the stack). The case of eval is special: if it is called at all by an inner function, all local variables are put in the context object.
The reason for the context object is that in general you could return an inner function from the outer one and then the stack that existed while the outer function ran won't be available anymore. So anything the inner function accesses has to survive the outer function and live on the heap rather than on the stack.
The debugger cannot inspect those variables that are on the stack. Regarding the problem encountered in debugging, one Project Member says:
The only solution I could think of is that whenever devtools is on, we would deopt all code and recompile with forced context allocation. That would dramatically regress performance with devtools enabled though.
Here's an example of the "if any inner function refers to the variable, put it in a context object". If you run this you'll be able to access x at the debugger statement even though x is only used in the foo function, which is never called!
function baz() {
var x = "x value";
var z = "z value";
function foo () {
console.log(x);
}
function bar() {
debugger;
};
bar();
}
baz();
Like #Louis said it caused by v8 optimizations.
You can traverse Call stack to frame where this variable is visible:
Or replace debugger with
eval('debugger');
eval will deopt current chunk
I've also noticed this in nodejs. I believe (and I admit this is only a guess) that when the code is compiled, if x does not appear inside bar, it doesn't make x available inside the scope of bar. This probably makes it slightly more efficient; the problem is someone forgot (or didn't care) that even if there's no x in bar, you might decide to run the debugger and hence still need to access x from inside bar.
Wow, really interesting!
As others have mentioned, this seems to be related to scope, but more specifically, related to debugger scope. When injected script is evaluated in the developer tools, it seems to determine a ScopeChain, which results in some quirkiness (since it's bound to the inspector/debugger scope). A variation of what you posted is this:
(EDIT - actually, you mention this in your original question, yikes, my bad!)
function foo() {
var x = "bat";
var y = "man";
function bar() {
console.log(x); // logs "bat"
debugger; // Attempting to access "y" throws the following
// Uncaught ReferenceError: y is not defined
// However, x is available in the scopeChain. Weird!
}
bar();
}
foo();
For the ambitious and/or curious, scope (heh) out the source to see what's going on:
https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source/JavaScriptCore/inspector
https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source/JavaScriptCore/debugger
I suspect this has to do with variable and function hoisting. JavaScript brings all variable and function declarations to the top of the function they are defined in. More info here: http://jamesallardice.com/explaining-function-and-variable-hoisting-in-javascript/
I bet that Chrome is calling the break point with the variable unavailable to the scope because there is nothing else in the function. This seems to work:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
console.log(x);
debugger;
};
bar();
}
As does this:
function baz() {
var x = "foo";
function bar() {
debugger;
console.log(x);
};
bar();
}
Hope this, and / or the link above helps. These are my favorite kind of SO questions, BTW :)
I seem to have access to _this. Where this is undefined in chrome inspector for me, _this seems to reference the appropriate context (and is probably what's used to as > local > this in the stack trace inspector?).
I know this is a bit old, but my issue was minification using babel - i.e. --presets minify
When my js code was built and minified my local variables were undefined; when not minified I was able to see values of variables in the console.

Javascript Hoisting in Chrome And Firefox

Running this in Chrome and Firefox gives different answers:
(function() {
if(true) {
function f() { alert("yes"); };
} else {
function f() { alert("no"); };
}
f();
})();
In Chrome the result is 'no'
In Firefox the result is 'yes'
Why the difference?
Declaring functions inside conditional statements is non-standard, so do not do that. That's a known issue. You may use function expressions instead of the declarations:
var f;
if(true) {
f = function() { alert("yes"); };
} else {
f = function() { alert("no"); };
}
f();
The famous Kangax article on function expressions gives some additional details:
FunctionDeclarations are only allowed to appear in Program or FunctionBody. Syntactically, they can not appear in Block ({ ... }) — such as that of if, while or for statements. This is because Blocks can only contain Statements, not SourceElements, which FunctionDeclaration is.
The same article also says:
It's worth mentioning that as per specification, implementations are allowed to introduce syntax extensions (see section 16), yet still be fully conforming. This is exactly what happens in so many clients these days. Some of them interpret function declarations in blocks as any other function declarations — simply hoisting them to the top of the enclosing scope; Others — introduce different semantics and follow slightly more complex rules.
From V8 (Chrome JavaScript engine) bug tracker:
Not a bug. Firefox is the only browser that does what you're expecting.
The behavior of Safari and IE on this is the same as Chrome's/V8's.
This happens due to Firefox lack of function hoisting, as conceived in ECMAScript 5.
Chrome correctly assigns a value to f() before running the body of the function,
so the first version of f() is overwritten by the second one.
SpiderMonkey (Firefox’s JavaScript engine) runs the code without pre-assignin a value to f(),
so it uses the only value that encounters on its way: function f() { alert("yes"); };
what's function hoisting?
JavaScript’s function scope means that all variables declared within a function are visible
throughout the body of the function. Curiously, this means that variables are even
visible before they are declared. This feature of JavaScript is informally known as hoisting:
JavaScript code behaves as if all variable declarations in a function (but not any
associated assignments) are “hoisted” to the top of the function.
sources:
http://statichtml.com/2011/spidermonkey-function-hoisting.html
2011 - o'reilly - javascript - the definitive guide 6th edition

Why are function declarations handled differently in different browsers?

Although I couldn't find a reference to this easily in google, I'm familiar with the fact that, in javascript, global function declarations get interpreted before any code is executed. In other words, this works fine:
f();
function f() {}
However, I've noticed that chrome and firefox have different interpretations of what a global function declaration is. In particular, chrome is happy reading a function declaration that is inside an if block in the first pass, but firefox is not.
try {document.write(f);} // works in chrome
catch(e) {document.write(e.message);} // throws an error in firefox
try {document.write(g);} // works in chrome and firefox
catch(e) {document.write(e.message);}
if(true) function f() {}
function g() {}
You can try this example yourself with this fiddle. I'm using Chrome 16.0.912.75 and Firefox 9.0.1.
What is the ECMA standard for this behavior? Is there a term for this process of "lifting" function declarations above other code? Is what code gets "lifted" open to interpretation (are both browsers right)? Or is it a bug in one of them?
This answer is outdated since the release of ES6 in 2015. See What are the precise semantics of block-level functions in ES6? for how it works since then.
Function declarations are not valid in blocks. You have undefined behaviour which is undefined.
Function declarations at a top level (either global or top level within a function) are hoisted.
Function declarations inside blocks are a syntax error in strict mode
(function () {
"use strict";
if (true) {
function g() { }
}
})();
SyntaxError: In strict mode code, functions can only be declared at top level or immediately within another function.
The ECMA standard for this behavior is to throw a SyntaxError when parsing the script. Unfortunately doing that is not compatible with the web as Raynos says.
See Which JS function-declaration syntax is correct according to the standard? for some extended discussion on the issue.

Categories

Resources