Declare a class property outside of a class method

Declare a class property outside of a class method - javascript

See how x and y are declared in constructor:
class Point {
constructor(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
toString() {
return '(' + this.x + ', ' + this.y + ')';
}
}
is there an way to declare properties outside of functions for instance:
class Point {
// Declare static class property here
// a: 22
constructor(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
toString() {
return '(' + this.x + ', ' + this.y + ')';
}
}
So I want to assign a to 22 but I am unsure if i can do it outside the constructor but still inside the class..

Initializing properties directly on a class in ES6 is not possible, only methods can currently be declared in this way. Same rules stand in ES7 as well.
However, it is a proposed feature that might come after ES7 (currently in stage 3). Here is the official proposal.
Additionally, the syntax the proposal is suggesting is slightly different (= instead of :):
class Point {
// Declare class property
a = 22
// Declare class static property
static b = 33
}
If you are using Babel, you can use the stage 3 settings to enable this feature.
Here's a Babel REPL example
The other way to do this in ES6, other than in the constructor, is to do it after the class definition:
class Point {
// ...
}
// Declare class property
Point.prototype.a = 22;
// Declare class static property
Point.b = 33;
Here's a good SO Thread diving into this topic some more
Note:
As Bergi mentioned in the comments, the suggested syntax:
class Point {
// Declare class property
a = 22
}
is just syntactic sugar to provide a shortcut for this code:
class Point {
constructor() {
this.a = 22;
}
}
Where both of those statements assign a property to an instance.
However, this isn't exactly the same as assigning to the prototype:
class Point {
constructor() {
this.a = 22; // this becomes a property directly on the instance
}
}
Point.prototype.b = 33; // this becomes a property on the prototype
Both would still be available via an instance:
var point = new Point();
p.a // 22
p.b // 33
But getting b would require going up the prototype chain while a is available directly on the object.

#nem035 is right that it is in proposal stage.
However, #nem035's sugggetion is one way to achieve it as class instance member.
// Declare static class property here
Seems you are looking to declare a static member. If yes,
JavaScript way is
class Point {
// ...
}
Point.a = '22';
The way you are actually expecting can be done in TypeScript
class Point {
static a = 22;
}
The compiled output will be same as above example
Point.a = '22';

Related

ES6 inheritance: uses `super` to access the properties of the parent class

Javascript's super keyword, when I run the code on Chrome, Babel, TypeScript, I got different results.
My question is which result is correct? And what part of specification defines such behavior?
The following code:
class Point {
getX() {
console.log(this.x); // C
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
constructor() {
super();
this.x = 2;
super.x = 3;
console.log(this.x) // A
console.log(super.x) // B
}
m() {
this.getX()
}
}
const cp = new ColorPoint();
cp.m();
The results:
Chrome 58.0.3029.110 64bit (V8 5.8.283.38)
Babel Repl 6.24.2
TypeScript 2.3
links:
gist
babel

Short answer:
Chrome is correct. And this is caused by the unbalance between get and set.
OrdinarySet is reciever sensitive, but OrdinaryGet is not.
So super.x = 3 has the same effect of this.x = 3, because the receiver here is this. Evaluatingsuper.x, which never reach this, will always get undefined because A.prototype does not have such field.
More details:
The super.x is a SuperReference. And assignment to SuperReference will call PutValue(V, W), which in turn call super object's internal slot [[Set]] and finally OrdinarySet.
In plain JavaScript, the statement super.x = 3 is basically equivalent to:
OrdinarySet(proto, 'x', 3, this).
Where proto is the super object, internally the [[HomeObject]] of constructor ColorPoint. proto is equivalent to Object.create(Point.prototype), as the ClassDefinitionEvaluation specifies, and it is passed to constructor as [[HomeObject]].
Now let's see how OrdinarySet works. In step 4c and 4d, the spec requires set operation is done on receiver this, not the proto object.
Let existingDescriptor be ? Receiver.[GetOwnProperty].
If existingDescriptor is not undefined, then
If IsAccessorDescriptor(existingDescriptor) is true, return false.
If existingDescriptor.[[Writable]] is false, return false.
Let valueDesc be the PropertyDescriptor{[[Value]]: V}.
Return ? Receiver.[[DefineOwnProperty]](P, valueDesc).
These statements says OrdinarySet(proto, 3, this) means this.x = 3.
On the other hand, OrdinaryGet ignores Receiver . super.x is
OrdinaryGet(proto, 'x', this).
OrdinaryGet does not have Receiver in its clauses at all! So super.x is equivalent to Object.create(Point.prototype).x, which is undefined of course.
As a rule of thumb, if there is discrepancy between transpilers and browsers, browsers, especially Chrome, are usually more loyal to the ECMAScript specification. Transpilers usually trade some edge case correctness for runtime efficiency.

Diffrence I saw :-
super helps to take all the this part of above class in it
and we can change that this accordingly`
we can change this.x of class point by super.x OR this.x in JAVASCRIPT
But we can can't make change in tyescript with super.x (it will behave
the new obect of class colorPoint)..this change can
only be happen by this.x
we can't make even call 2nd time to super() in JAVASCRIPT it will give an
err and we can call the super() in type script
it will make re-Initilize the Point constructor class
Typescript thing I have notice in TypeScript Playground by Runing it
"use strict";
class Point {
getX() {
console.log("POINT " + this.x);
}
constructor() {
this.x = 10;
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
constructor() {
super();
this.y = 2;
console.log("THIS x" + this.x); // 10
console.log("THIS y" + this.y); // 2
console.log("SUPER !" + super.x); // undef
super.x = 3;
console.log("THIS.x after a " + this.x); // 10
this.x = 20;
console.log("THIS.x after b " + this.x); // 20
super();
console.log("SUPER x" + super.x); //
console.log("THIS x" + this.x); //
console.log(this); // give this of colorPoint
console.log(super()); // give this of colorPoint
}
}
const cp = new ColorPoint();
cp.getX();
Javascript thing i have notice in console by command node super.js
"use strict";
class Point {
getX() {
console.log("POINT " + this.x);
}
constructor() {
this.x = 10;
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
constructor() {
super();
this.y = 2;
console.log("THIS x" + this.x); //
console.log("THIS y" + this.y); //
// console.log("SUPER" + super.x); //
super.x = 3;
console.log("THIS.x after a " + this.x); //
this.x = 20;
console.log("THIS.x after b " + this.x); //
//gives err
// super();
// console.log("SUPER x" + super.x); //
// console.log("THIS x" + this.x); //
}
// m() {
// this.getX();
// }
}
const cp = new ColorPoint();
cp.getX();

A rule of programming Garbage in -> Garbage out. The following code :
class Point {
x: number;
getX() {
console.log(this.x);
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
constructor() {
super();
this.x = 2;
super.x = 3; // ERROR
}
}
You get a nice TypeScript error Only public and protected methods can be accessed. Note the word methods. super should not be used for properties. Invalid code is not something you should run.

Class properties in ECMAScript 6 [duplicate]

Currently in ES5 many of us are using the following pattern in frameworks to create classes and class variables, which is comfy:
// ES 5
FrameWork.Class({
variable: 'string',
variable2: true,
init: function(){
},
addItem: function(){
}
});
In ES6 you can create classes natively, but there is no option to have class variables:
// ES6
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string'; // <-- this is not possible in ES6
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Sadly, the above won't work, as classes only can contain methods.
I understand that I can this.myVar = true in constructor…but I don't want to 'junk' my constructor, especially when I have 20-30+ params for a bigger class.
I was thinking of many ways to handle this issue, but haven't yet found any good ones. (For example: create a ClassConfig handler, and pass a parameter object, which is declared separately from the class. Then the handler would attach to the class. I was thinking about WeakMaps also to integrate, somehow.)
What kind of ideas would you have to handle this situation?

2018 update:
There is now a stage 3 proposal - I am looking forward to make this answer obsolete in a few months.
In the meantime anyone using TypeScript or babel can use the syntax:
varName = value
Inside a class declaration/expression body and it will define a variable. Hopefully in a few months/weeks I'll be able to post an update.
Update: Chrome 74 now ships with this syntax working.
The notes in the ES wiki for the proposal in ES6 (maximally minimal classes) note:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration.
Properties specified in a class definition are assigned the same attributes as if they appeared in an object literal.
This means that what you're asking for was considered, and explicitly decided against.
but... why?
Good question. The good people of TC39 want class declarations to declare and define the capabilities of a class. Not its members. An ES6 class declaration defines its contract for its user.
Remember, a class definition defines prototype methods - defining variables on the prototype is generally not something you do.
You can, of course use:
constructor(){
this.foo = bar
}
In the constructor like you suggested. Also see the summary of the consensus.
ES7 and beyond
A new proposal for ES7 is being worked on that allows more concise instance variables through class declarations and expressions - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/es7-property-initializers

Just to add to Benjamin's answer — class variables are possible, but you wouldn't use prototype to set them.
For a true class variable you'd want to do something like the following:
class MyClass {}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
From within a class method that variable can be accessed as this.constructor.foo (or MyClass.foo).
These class properties would not usually be accessible from to the class instance. i.e. MyClass.foo gives 'bar' but new MyClass().foo is undefined
If you want to also have access to your class variable from an instance, you'll have to additionally define a getter:
class MyClass {
get foo() {
return this.constructor.foo;
}
}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
I've only tested this with Traceur, but I believe it will work the same in a standard implementation.
JavaScript doesn't really have classes. Even with ES6 we're looking at an object- or prototype-based language rather than a class-based language. In any function X () {}, X.prototype.constructor points back to X.
When the new operator is used on X, a new object is created inheriting X.prototype. Any undefined properties in that new object (including constructor) are looked up from there. We can think of this as generating object and class properties.

Babel supports class variables in ESNext, check this example:
class Foo {
bar = 2
static iha = 'string'
}
const foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo.bar, foo.iha, Foo.bar, Foo.iha);
// 2, undefined, undefined, 'string'

In your example:
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string';
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Because of MY_CONST is primitive https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive we can just do:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
return 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
But if MY_CONST is reference type like static get MY_CONST() {return ['string'];} alert output is string, false. In such case delete operator can do the trick:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
And finally for class variable not const:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
static set U_YIN_YANG(value) {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
MyClass.MY_CONST = value;
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
set MY_CONST(value) {
this.constructor.MY_CONST = value;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, true
MyClass.MY_CONST = ['string, 42']
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, 42 ; true

Since your issue is mostly stylistic (not wanting to fill up the constructor with a bunch of declarations) it can be solved stylistically as well.
The way I view it, many class based languages have the constructor be a function named after the class name itself. Stylistically we could use that that to make an ES6 class that stylistically still makes sense but does not group the typical actions taking place in the constructor with all the property declarations we're doing. We simply use the actual JS constructor as the "declaration area", then make a class named function that we otherwise treat as the "other constructor stuff" area, calling it at the end of the true constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
// only declare your properties and then call this.ClassName(); from here
constructor(){
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
this.MyClass();
}
// all sorts of other "constructor" stuff, no longer jumbled with declarations
MyClass() {
doWhatever();
}
}
Both will be called as the new instance is constructed.
Sorta like having 2 constructors where you separate out the declarations and the other constructor actions you want to take, and stylistically makes it not too hard to understand that's what is going on too.
I find it's a nice style to use when dealing with a lot of declarations and/or a lot of actions needing to happen on instantiation and wanting to keep the two ideas distinct from each other.
NOTE: I very purposefully do not use the typical idiomatic ideas of "initializing" (like an init() or initialize() method) because those are often used differently. There is a sort of presumed difference between the idea of constructing and initializing. Working with constructors people know that they're called automatically as part of instantiation. Seeing an init method many people are going to assume without a second glance that they need to be doing something along the form of var mc = MyClass(); mc.init();, because that's how you typically initialize. I'm not trying to add an initialization process for the user of the class, I'm trying to add to the construction process of the class itself.
While some people may do a double-take for a moment, that's actually the bit of the point: it communicates to them that the intent is part of construction, even if that makes them do a bit of a double take and go "that's not how ES6 constructors work" and take a second looking at the actual constructor to go "oh, they call it at the bottom, I see", that's far better than NOT communicating that intent (or incorrectly communicating it) and probably getting a lot of people using it wrong, trying to initialize it from the outside and junk. That's very much intentional to the pattern I suggest.
For those that don't want to follow that pattern, the exact opposite can work too. Farm the declarations out to another function at the beginning. Maybe name it "properties" or "publicProperties" or something. Then put the rest of the stuff in the normal constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
properties() {
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
}
constructor() {
this.properties();
doWhatever();
}
}
Note that this second method may look cleaner but it also has an inherent problem where properties gets overridden as one class using this method extends another. You'd have to give more unique names to properties to avoid that. My first method does not have this problem because its fake half of the constructor is uniquely named after the class.

As Benjamin said in his answer, TC39 explicitly decided not to include this feature at least for ES2015. However, the consensus seems to be that they will add it in ES2016.
The syntax hasn't been decided yet, but there's a preliminary proposal for ES2016 that will allow you to declare static properties on a class.
Thanks to the magic of babel, you can use this today. Enable the class properties transform according to these instructions and you're good to go. Here's an example of the syntax:
class foo {
static myProp = 'bar'
someFunction() {
console.log(this.myProp)
}
}
This proposal is in a very early state, so be prepared to tweak your syntax as time goes on.

What about the oldschool way?
class MyClass {
constructor(count){
this.countVar = 1 + count;
}
}
MyClass.prototype.foo = "foo";
MyClass.prototype.countVar = 0;
// ...
var o1 = new MyClass(2); o2 = new MyClass(3);
o1.foo = "newFoo";
console.log( o1.foo,o2.foo);
console.log( o1.countVar,o2.countVar);
In constructor you mention only those vars which have to be computed.
I like prototype inheritance for this feature -- it can help to save a lot of memory(in case if there are a lot of never-assigned vars).

[Long thread, not sure if its already listed as an option...].
A simple alternative for contsants only, would be defining the const outside of class.
This will be accessible only from the module itself, unless accompanied with a getter.
This way prototype isn't littered and you get the const.
// will be accessible only from the module itself
const MY_CONST = 'string';
class MyClass {
// optional, if external access is desired
static get MY_CONST(){return MY_CONST;}
// access example
static someMethod(){
console.log(MY_CONST);
}
}

ES7 class member syntax:
ES7 has a solution for 'junking' your constructor function. Here is an example:
class Car {
wheels = 4;
weight = 100;
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
The above example would look the following in ES6:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.wheels = 4;
this.weight = 100;
}
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
Be aware when using this that this syntax might not be supported by all browsers and might have to be transpiled an earlier version of JS.
Bonus: an object factory:
function generateCar(wheels, weight) {
class Car {
constructor() {}
wheels = wheels;
weight = weight;
}
return new Car();
}
const car1 = generateCar(4, 50);
const car2 = generateCar(6, 100);
console.log(car1.wheels, car1.weight);
console.log(car2.wheels, car2.weight);

You can mimic es6 classes behaviour... and use your class variables :)
Look mum... no classes!
// Helper
const $constructor = Symbol();
const $extends = (parent, child) =>
Object.assign(Object.create(parent), child);
const $new = (object, ...args) => {
let instance = Object.create(object);
instance[$constructor].call(instance, ...args);
return instance;
}
const $super = (parent, context, ...args) => {
parent[$constructor].call(context, ...args)
}
// class
var Foo = {
classVariable: true,
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
this.me = who;
this.species = 'fufel';
},
// methods
identify(){
return 'I am ' + this.me;
}
}
// class extends Foo
var Bar = $extends(Foo, {
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
$super(Foo, this, who);
this.subtype = 'barashek';
},
// methods
speak(){
console.log('Hello, ' + this.identify());
},
bark(num){
console.log('Woof');
}
});
var a1 = $new(Foo, 'a1');
var b1 = $new(Bar, 'b1');
console.log(a1, b1);
console.log('b1.classVariable', b1.classVariable);
I put it on GitHub

Still you can't declare any classes like in another programming languages. But you can create as many class variables. But problem is scope of class object. So According to me, Best way OOP Programming in ES6 Javascript:-
class foo{
constructor(){
//decalre your all variables
this.MY_CONST = 3.14;
this.x = 5;
this.y = 7;
// or call another method to declare more variables outside from constructor.
// now create method level object reference and public level property
this.MySelf = this;
// you can also use var modifier rather than property but that is not working good
let self = this.MySelf;
//code .........
}
set MySelf(v){
this.mySelf = v;
}
get MySelf(v){
return this.mySelf;
}
myMethod(cd){
// now use as object reference it in any method of class
let self = this.MySelf;
// now use self as object reference in code
}
}

If its only the cluttering what gives the problem in the constructor why not implement a initialize method that intializes the variables. This is a normal thing to do when the constructor gets to full with unnecessary stuff. Even in typed program languages like C# its normal convention to add an Initialize method to handle that.

Just define a getter.
class MyClass
{
get MY_CONST () { return 'string'; }
constructor ()
{
console.log ("MyClass MY_CONST:", this.MY_CONST);
}
}
var obj = new MyClass();

The way I solved this, which is another option (if you have jQuery available), was to Define the fields in an old-school object and then extend the class with that object. I also didn't want to pepper the constructor with assignments, this appeared to be a neat solution.
function MyClassFields(){
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
MyClassFields.prototype = {
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt : null,
};
class MyClass {
constructor() {
$.extend(this,new MyClassFields());
}
};
-- Update Following Bergi's comment.
No JQuery Version:
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
Object.assign(this,{
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt: new Date(),
});
}
}
You still do end up with 'fat' constructor, but at least its all in one class and assigned in one hit.
EDIT #2:
I've now gone full circle and am now assigning values in the constructor, e.g.
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
this.id = '';
this.type = '';
this.title = '';
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
}
Why? Simple really, using the above plus some JSdoc comments, PHPStorm was able to perform code completion on the properties. Assigning all the vars in one hit was nice, but the inability to code complete the properties, imo, isn't worth the (almost certainly minuscule) performance benefit.

Well, you can declare variables inside the Constructor.
class Foo {
constructor() {
var name = "foo"
this.method = function() {
return name
}
}
}
var foo = new Foo()
foo.method()

Recent browsers as of 2021 (not IE, see MDN browser chart) implement Public class fields which seems to be what you're looking for:
class MyClass {
static foo = 3;
}
console.log(MyClass.foo);
However apparently it's not possible to make this a const: Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?
A static getter looks pretty close:
class MyClass {
static get CONST() {
return 3;
}
}
MyClass.CONST = 4; // property unaffected
console.log(MyClass.CONST);

This is a bit hackish combo of static and get works for me
class ConstantThingy{
static get NO_REENTER__INIT() {
if(ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT== null){
ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT = new ConstantThingy(false,true);
}
return ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT;
}
}
elsewhere used
var conf = ConstantThingy.NO_REENTER__INIT;
if(conf.init)...

Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?

I want to implement constants in a class, because that's where it makes sense to locate them in the code.
So far, I have been implementing the following workaround with static methods:
class MyClass {
static constant1() { return 33; }
static constant2() { return 2; }
// ...
}
I know there is a possibility to fiddle with prototypes, but many recommend against this.
Is there a better way to implement constants in ES6 classes?

Here's a few things you could do:
Export a const from the module. Depending on your use case, you could just:
export const constant1 = 33;
And import that from the module where necessary. Or, building on your static method idea, you could declare a static get accessor:
const constant1 = 33,
constant2 = 2;
class Example {
static get constant1() {
return constant1;
}
static get constant2() {
return constant2;
}
}
That way, you won't need parenthesis:
const one = Example.constant1;
Babel REPL Example
Then, as you say, since a class is just syntactic sugar for a function you can just add a non-writable property like so:
class Example {
}
Object.defineProperty(Example, 'constant1', {
value: 33,
writable : false,
enumerable : true,
configurable : false
});
Example.constant1; // 33
Example.constant1 = 15; // TypeError
It may be nice if we could just do something like:
class Example {
static const constant1 = 33;
}
But unfortunately this class property syntax is only in an ES7 proposal, and even then it won't allow for adding const to the property.

class Whatever {
static get MyConst() { return 10; }
}
let a = Whatever.MyConst;
Seems to work for me.

I'm using babel and the following syntax is working for me:
class MyClass {
static constant1 = 33;
static constant2 = {
case1: 1,
case2: 2,
};
// ...
}
MyClass.constant1 === 33
MyClass.constant2.case1 === 1
Please consider that you need the preset "stage-0".
To install it:
npm install --save-dev babel-preset-stage-0
// in .babelrc
{
"presets": ["stage-0"]
}
Update for stage:
it was moved on stage-3.
Update Babel 7:
As per Babel 7 stage presets are deprecated.
The Babel plugin to use is #babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties.
npm i --save-dev #babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties
{
"plugins": ["#babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties"]
}
Note: This plugin is included in #babel/preset-env

In this document it states:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
This means that it is intentionally like this.
Maybe you can define a variable in the constructor?
constructor(){
this.key = value
}

It is also possible to use Object.freeze on you class(es6)/constructor function(es5) object to make it immutable:
class MyConstants {}
MyConstants.staticValue = 3;
MyConstants.staticMethod = function() {
return 4;
}
Object.freeze(MyConstants);
// after the freeze, any attempts of altering the MyConstants class will have no result
// (either trying to alter, add or delete a property)
MyConstants.staticValue === 3; // true
MyConstants.staticValue = 55; // will have no effect
MyConstants.staticValue === 3; // true
MyConstants.otherStaticValue = "other" // will have no effect
MyConstants.otherStaticValue === undefined // true
delete MyConstants.staticMethod // false
typeof(MyConstants.staticMethod) === "function" // true
Trying to alter the class will give you a soft-fail (won't throw any errors, it will simply have no effect).

Maybe just put all your constants in a frozen object?
class MyClass {
constructor() {
this.constants = Object.freeze({
constant1: 33,
constant2: 2,
});
}
static get constant1() {
return this.constants.constant1;
}
doThisAndThat() {
//...
let value = this.constants.constant2;
//...
}
}

You can create a way to define static constants on a class using an odd feature of ES6 classes. Since statics are inherited by their subclasses, you can do the following:
const withConsts = (map, BaseClass = Object) => {
class ConstClass extends BaseClass { }
Object.keys(map).forEach(key => {
Object.defineProperty(ConstClass, key, {
value: map[key],
writable : false,
enumerable : true,
configurable : false
});
});
return ConstClass;
};
class MyClass extends withConsts({ MY_CONST: 'this is defined' }) {
foo() {
console.log(MyClass.MY_CONST);
}
}

Like https://stackoverflow.com/users/2784136/rodrigo-botti said, I think you're looking for Object.freeze(). Here's an example of a class with immutable statics:
class User {
constructor(username, age) {
if (age < User.minimumAge) {
throw new Error('You are too young to be here!');
}
this.username = username;
this.age = age;
this.state = 'active';
}
}
User.minimumAge = 16;
User.validStates = ['active', 'inactive', 'archived'];
deepFreeze(User);
function deepFreeze(value) {
if (typeof value === 'object' && value !== null) {
Object.freeze(value);
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(value).forEach(property => {
deepFreeze(value[property]);
});
}
return value;
}

I did this.
class Circle
{
constuctor(radius)
{
this.radius = radius;
}
static get PI()
{
return 3.14159;
}
}
The value of PI is protected from being changed since it is a value being returned from a function. You can access it via Circle.PI. Any attempt to assign to it is simply dropped on the floor in a manner similar to an attempt to assign to a string character via [].

You could use import * as syntax. Although not a class, they are real const variables.
Constants.js
export const factor = 3;
export const pi = 3.141592;
index.js
import * as Constants from 'Constants.js'
console.log( Constants.factor );

You can make the "constants" read-only (immutable) by freezing the class. e.g.
class Foo {
static BAR = "bat"; //public static read-only
}
Object.freeze(Foo);
/*
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'BAR' of function 'class Foo {
static BAR = "bat"; //public static read-only
}'
*/
Foo.BAR = "wut";

Here is one more way you can do
/*
one more way of declaring constants in a class,
Note - the constants have to be declared after the class is defined
*/
class Auto{
//other methods
}
Auto.CONSTANT1 = "const1";
Auto.CONSTANT2 = "const2";
console.log(Auto.CONSTANT1)
console.log(Auto.CONSTANT2);
Note - the Order is important, you cannot have the constants above
Usage
console.log(Auto.CONSTANT1);

The cleanest way I've found of doing this is with TypeScript - see How to implement class constants?
class MyClass {
static readonly CONST1: string = "one";
static readonly CONST2: string = "two";
static readonly CONST3: string = "three";
}

Just declare your variables as private and use a get method to retrieve them.
class MyClass {
#myConst = 'Something';
static #anotherConst = 'Something Else';
get myConst() {
return this.#myConst; // instance method
}
static get anotherConst() {
return MyClass.#anotherConst; // static method
}
}
let myClass = new MyClass();
console.log( myClass.myConst + ' is not ' + MyClass.anotherConst );
Users cannot change the original variable, and you can write the class to use the get methods rather than the private variables themselves.

One pattern that I use to expose error codes, i.e.,
I have many constants inside the module
I may not want to expose all constants to callers
I do not want to provide 1 static constant for one exposed constant
// inside the module
const Errors = {
INTERNAL: 100,
EMPTY_QUEUE: 101,
UNKNOWN_COMMAND: 102,
OK: 200,
MOVE: 201,
CREATE_DOT: 202,
PIXEL_MAPPING: 203
}
Object.freeze(Errors);
class PlotterError extends Error {
// use constant inside the module
code = Errors.INTERNAL;
constructor(message, code) {
super(message);
this.name = 'PlotterError';
this.code = code
}
}
// expose via static constant
Class Plotter {
.....
static get ERRORS() {
return Errors;
}
....
export Plotter;
// module ends
// in the caller
import {Plotter} from ...
try {
this.plotter.execute();
} catch(error) {
if(error.code == Plotter.ERRORS.EMPTY_QUEUE) {
//
}
}
We can also decide to expose only the constants we want by breaking the constants acr two objects.

If you are comfortable mixing and matching between function and class syntax you can declare constants after the class (the constants are 'lifted') . Note that Visual Studio Code will struggle to auto-format the mixed syntax, (though it works).
class MyClass {
// ...
}
MyClass.prototype.consts = {
constant1: 33,
constant2: 32
};
mc = new MyClass();
console.log(mc.consts.constant2);

Adding up to other answers you need to export the class to use in a different class. This is a typescript version of it.
//Constants.tsx
const DEBUG: boolean = true;
export class Constants {
static get DEBUG(): boolean {
return DEBUG;
}
}
//Anotherclass.tsx
import { Constants } from "Constants";
if (Constants.DEBUG) {
console.log("debug mode")
}

If trying to make a const/variable static to a class; try using the hash (#) to define a place holder, than a function to access it.
class Region {
// initially empty, not accessible from outside
static #empty_region = null;
/*
Make it visible to the outside and unchangeable
[note] created on first call to getter.
*/
static EMPTY() {
if (!this.#empty_region)
this.#empty_region = new Region(0, 0, 0, 0);
return this.#empty_region;
}
#reg = {x0:0, y0:0, x1:0, y1:0};
constructor(x0, y0, x1, y1) {
this.setRegion(x0, y0, x1, y1);
}
// setters/getters
}
Implementation:
let someRegion = Region.EMPTY();
let anotherRegion = Region.EMPTY();

Here You Go!
const Status = Object.freeze(class Status {
static Disabled = 0
static Live = 1
})

ES6 class variable alternatives

Currently in ES5 many of us are using the following pattern in frameworks to create classes and class variables, which is comfy:
// ES 5
FrameWork.Class({
variable: 'string',
variable2: true,
init: function(){
},
addItem: function(){
}
});
In ES6 you can create classes natively, but there is no option to have class variables:
// ES6
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string'; // <-- this is not possible in ES6
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Sadly, the above won't work, as classes only can contain methods.
I understand that I can this.myVar = true in constructor…but I don't want to 'junk' my constructor, especially when I have 20-30+ params for a bigger class.
I was thinking of many ways to handle this issue, but haven't yet found any good ones. (For example: create a ClassConfig handler, and pass a parameter object, which is declared separately from the class. Then the handler would attach to the class. I was thinking about WeakMaps also to integrate, somehow.)
What kind of ideas would you have to handle this situation?

2018 update:
There is now a stage 3 proposal - I am looking forward to make this answer obsolete in a few months.
In the meantime anyone using TypeScript or babel can use the syntax:
varName = value
Inside a class declaration/expression body and it will define a variable. Hopefully in a few months/weeks I'll be able to post an update.
Update: Chrome 74 now ships with this syntax working.
The notes in the ES wiki for the proposal in ES6 (maximally minimal classes) note:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration.
Properties specified in a class definition are assigned the same attributes as if they appeared in an object literal.
This means that what you're asking for was considered, and explicitly decided against.
but... why?
Good question. The good people of TC39 want class declarations to declare and define the capabilities of a class. Not its members. An ES6 class declaration defines its contract for its user.
Remember, a class definition defines prototype methods - defining variables on the prototype is generally not something you do.
You can, of course use:
constructor(){
this.foo = bar
}
In the constructor like you suggested. Also see the summary of the consensus.
ES7 and beyond
A new proposal for ES7 is being worked on that allows more concise instance variables through class declarations and expressions - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/es7-property-initializers

Just to add to Benjamin's answer — class variables are possible, but you wouldn't use prototype to set them.
For a true class variable you'd want to do something like the following:
class MyClass {}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
From within a class method that variable can be accessed as this.constructor.foo (or MyClass.foo).
These class properties would not usually be accessible from to the class instance. i.e. MyClass.foo gives 'bar' but new MyClass().foo is undefined
If you want to also have access to your class variable from an instance, you'll have to additionally define a getter:
class MyClass {
get foo() {
return this.constructor.foo;
}
}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
I've only tested this with Traceur, but I believe it will work the same in a standard implementation.
JavaScript doesn't really have classes. Even with ES6 we're looking at an object- or prototype-based language rather than a class-based language. In any function X () {}, X.prototype.constructor points back to X.
When the new operator is used on X, a new object is created inheriting X.prototype. Any undefined properties in that new object (including constructor) are looked up from there. We can think of this as generating object and class properties.

Babel supports class variables in ESNext, check this example:
class Foo {
bar = 2
static iha = 'string'
}
const foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo.bar, foo.iha, Foo.bar, Foo.iha);
// 2, undefined, undefined, 'string'

In your example:
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string';
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Because of MY_CONST is primitive https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive we can just do:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
return 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
But if MY_CONST is reference type like static get MY_CONST() {return ['string'];} alert output is string, false. In such case delete operator can do the trick:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
And finally for class variable not const:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
static set U_YIN_YANG(value) {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
MyClass.MY_CONST = value;
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
set MY_CONST(value) {
this.constructor.MY_CONST = value;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, true
MyClass.MY_CONST = ['string, 42']
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, 42 ; true

Since your issue is mostly stylistic (not wanting to fill up the constructor with a bunch of declarations) it can be solved stylistically as well.
The way I view it, many class based languages have the constructor be a function named after the class name itself. Stylistically we could use that that to make an ES6 class that stylistically still makes sense but does not group the typical actions taking place in the constructor with all the property declarations we're doing. We simply use the actual JS constructor as the "declaration area", then make a class named function that we otherwise treat as the "other constructor stuff" area, calling it at the end of the true constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
// only declare your properties and then call this.ClassName(); from here
constructor(){
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
this.MyClass();
}
// all sorts of other "constructor" stuff, no longer jumbled with declarations
MyClass() {
doWhatever();
}
}
Both will be called as the new instance is constructed.
Sorta like having 2 constructors where you separate out the declarations and the other constructor actions you want to take, and stylistically makes it not too hard to understand that's what is going on too.
I find it's a nice style to use when dealing with a lot of declarations and/or a lot of actions needing to happen on instantiation and wanting to keep the two ideas distinct from each other.
NOTE: I very purposefully do not use the typical idiomatic ideas of "initializing" (like an init() or initialize() method) because those are often used differently. There is a sort of presumed difference between the idea of constructing and initializing. Working with constructors people know that they're called automatically as part of instantiation. Seeing an init method many people are going to assume without a second glance that they need to be doing something along the form of var mc = MyClass(); mc.init();, because that's how you typically initialize. I'm not trying to add an initialization process for the user of the class, I'm trying to add to the construction process of the class itself.
While some people may do a double-take for a moment, that's actually the bit of the point: it communicates to them that the intent is part of construction, even if that makes them do a bit of a double take and go "that's not how ES6 constructors work" and take a second looking at the actual constructor to go "oh, they call it at the bottom, I see", that's far better than NOT communicating that intent (or incorrectly communicating it) and probably getting a lot of people using it wrong, trying to initialize it from the outside and junk. That's very much intentional to the pattern I suggest.
For those that don't want to follow that pattern, the exact opposite can work too. Farm the declarations out to another function at the beginning. Maybe name it "properties" or "publicProperties" or something. Then put the rest of the stuff in the normal constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
properties() {
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
}
constructor() {
this.properties();
doWhatever();
}
}
Note that this second method may look cleaner but it also has an inherent problem where properties gets overridden as one class using this method extends another. You'd have to give more unique names to properties to avoid that. My first method does not have this problem because its fake half of the constructor is uniquely named after the class.

As Benjamin said in his answer, TC39 explicitly decided not to include this feature at least for ES2015. However, the consensus seems to be that they will add it in ES2016.
The syntax hasn't been decided yet, but there's a preliminary proposal for ES2016 that will allow you to declare static properties on a class.
Thanks to the magic of babel, you can use this today. Enable the class properties transform according to these instructions and you're good to go. Here's an example of the syntax:
class foo {
static myProp = 'bar'
someFunction() {
console.log(this.myProp)
}
}
This proposal is in a very early state, so be prepared to tweak your syntax as time goes on.

What about the oldschool way?
class MyClass {
constructor(count){
this.countVar = 1 + count;
}
}
MyClass.prototype.foo = "foo";
MyClass.prototype.countVar = 0;
// ...
var o1 = new MyClass(2); o2 = new MyClass(3);
o1.foo = "newFoo";
console.log( o1.foo,o2.foo);
console.log( o1.countVar,o2.countVar);
In constructor you mention only those vars which have to be computed.
I like prototype inheritance for this feature -- it can help to save a lot of memory(in case if there are a lot of never-assigned vars).

[Long thread, not sure if its already listed as an option...].
A simple alternative for contsants only, would be defining the const outside of class.
This will be accessible only from the module itself, unless accompanied with a getter.
This way prototype isn't littered and you get the const.
// will be accessible only from the module itself
const MY_CONST = 'string';
class MyClass {
// optional, if external access is desired
static get MY_CONST(){return MY_CONST;}
// access example
static someMethod(){
console.log(MY_CONST);
}
}

ES7 class member syntax:
ES7 has a solution for 'junking' your constructor function. Here is an example:
class Car {
wheels = 4;
weight = 100;
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
The above example would look the following in ES6:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.wheels = 4;
this.weight = 100;
}
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
Be aware when using this that this syntax might not be supported by all browsers and might have to be transpiled an earlier version of JS.
Bonus: an object factory:
function generateCar(wheels, weight) {
class Car {
constructor() {}
wheels = wheels;
weight = weight;
}
return new Car();
}
const car1 = generateCar(4, 50);
const car2 = generateCar(6, 100);
console.log(car1.wheels, car1.weight);
console.log(car2.wheels, car2.weight);

You can mimic es6 classes behaviour... and use your class variables :)
Look mum... no classes!
// Helper
const $constructor = Symbol();
const $extends = (parent, child) =>
Object.assign(Object.create(parent), child);
const $new = (object, ...args) => {
let instance = Object.create(object);
instance[$constructor].call(instance, ...args);
return instance;
}
const $super = (parent, context, ...args) => {
parent[$constructor].call(context, ...args)
}
// class
var Foo = {
classVariable: true,
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
this.me = who;
this.species = 'fufel';
},
// methods
identify(){
return 'I am ' + this.me;
}
}
// class extends Foo
var Bar = $extends(Foo, {
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
$super(Foo, this, who);
this.subtype = 'barashek';
},
// methods
speak(){
console.log('Hello, ' + this.identify());
},
bark(num){
console.log('Woof');
}
});
var a1 = $new(Foo, 'a1');
var b1 = $new(Bar, 'b1');
console.log(a1, b1);
console.log('b1.classVariable', b1.classVariable);
I put it on GitHub

Still you can't declare any classes like in another programming languages. But you can create as many class variables. But problem is scope of class object. So According to me, Best way OOP Programming in ES6 Javascript:-
class foo{
constructor(){
//decalre your all variables
this.MY_CONST = 3.14;
this.x = 5;
this.y = 7;
// or call another method to declare more variables outside from constructor.
// now create method level object reference and public level property
this.MySelf = this;
// you can also use var modifier rather than property but that is not working good
let self = this.MySelf;
//code .........
}
set MySelf(v){
this.mySelf = v;
}
get MySelf(v){
return this.mySelf;
}
myMethod(cd){
// now use as object reference it in any method of class
let self = this.MySelf;
// now use self as object reference in code
}
}

If its only the cluttering what gives the problem in the constructor why not implement a initialize method that intializes the variables. This is a normal thing to do when the constructor gets to full with unnecessary stuff. Even in typed program languages like C# its normal convention to add an Initialize method to handle that.

Just define a getter.
class MyClass
{
get MY_CONST () { return 'string'; }
constructor ()
{
console.log ("MyClass MY_CONST:", this.MY_CONST);
}
}
var obj = new MyClass();

The way I solved this, which is another option (if you have jQuery available), was to Define the fields in an old-school object and then extend the class with that object. I also didn't want to pepper the constructor with assignments, this appeared to be a neat solution.
function MyClassFields(){
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
MyClassFields.prototype = {
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt : null,
};
class MyClass {
constructor() {
$.extend(this,new MyClassFields());
}
};
-- Update Following Bergi's comment.
No JQuery Version:
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
Object.assign(this,{
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt: new Date(),
});
}
}
You still do end up with 'fat' constructor, but at least its all in one class and assigned in one hit.
EDIT #2:
I've now gone full circle and am now assigning values in the constructor, e.g.
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
this.id = '';
this.type = '';
this.title = '';
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
}
Why? Simple really, using the above plus some JSdoc comments, PHPStorm was able to perform code completion on the properties. Assigning all the vars in one hit was nice, but the inability to code complete the properties, imo, isn't worth the (almost certainly minuscule) performance benefit.

Well, you can declare variables inside the Constructor.
class Foo {
constructor() {
var name = "foo"
this.method = function() {
return name
}
}
}
var foo = new Foo()
foo.method()

Recent browsers as of 2021 (not IE, see MDN browser chart) implement Public class fields which seems to be what you're looking for:
class MyClass {
static foo = 3;
}
console.log(MyClass.foo);
However apparently it's not possible to make this a const: Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?
A static getter looks pretty close:
class MyClass {
static get CONST() {
return 3;
}
}
MyClass.CONST = 4; // property unaffected
console.log(MyClass.CONST);

This is a bit hackish combo of static and get works for me
class ConstantThingy{
static get NO_REENTER__INIT() {
if(ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT== null){
ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT = new ConstantThingy(false,true);
}
return ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT;
}
}
elsewhere used
var conf = ConstantThingy.NO_REENTER__INIT;
if(conf.init)...

Calculated/transient fields in JavaScript

I am trying to achieve something like the following using OO JavaScript:
class Sample
{
public int x {get; set;}
public int y {get; set;}
public int z
{
get {return x+y;}
}
}
I could not understand on how to implement property 'z' in above class.

You have to use a function. As of ECMAScript 5th edition (ES5), that function can be a "getter" for a property that you access in the normal non-function way; prior to that you have to use an explicit function call.
Here's the ES5 way, using defineProperty: Live copy | source
function Sample()
{
// Optionally set this.x and this.y here
// Define the z property
Object.defineProperty(this, "z", {
get: function() {
return this.x + this.y;
}
});
}
Usage:
var s = new Sample();
s.x = 3;
s.y = 4;
console.log(s.z); // "7"
With ES3 (e.g., earlier versions):
function Sample()
{
// Optionally set this.x and this.y here
}
Sample.prototype.getZ = function() {
return this.x + this.y;
};
Usage:
var s = new Sample();
s.x = 3;
s.y = 4;
console.log(s.getZ()); // "7"
Note that you have to actually make the function call getZ(), whereas ES5 makes it possible to make it a property access (just z).
Note that JavaScript doesn't (yet) have a class feature (although it's a reserved word and one is coming). You can do classes of objects via constructor functions and prototypes, as JavaScript is a prototypical language. (Well, it's a bit of a hybrid.) If you start getting into hierarchies, there starts to be some important, repetitive plumbing. See this other answer here on Stack Overflow for more about that.

Develop Reference

JavaScript is the programming language of the Web.

Declare a class property outside of a class method - javascript

Related

ES6 inheritance: uses `super` to access the properties of the parent class

Class properties in ECMAScript 6 [duplicate]

Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?

ES6 class variable alternatives

Calculated/transient fields in JavaScript

Categories

Resources