How can I access a function name from inside that function?
// parasitic inheritance
var ns.parent.child = function() {
var parent = new ns.parent();
parent.newFunc = function() {
}
return parent;
}
var ns.parent = function() {
// at this point, i want to know who the child is that called the parent
// ie
}
var obj = new ns.parent.child();
In ES6, you can just use myFunction.name.
Note: Beware that some JS minifiers might throw away function names, to compress better; you may need to tweak their settings to avoid that.
In ES5, the best thing to do is:
function functionName(fun) {
var ret = fun.toString();
ret = ret.substr('function '.length);
ret = ret.substr(0, ret.indexOf('('));
return ret;
}
Using Function.caller is non-standard. Function.caller and arguments.callee are both forbidden in strict mode.
Edit: nus's regex based answer below achieves the same thing, but has better performance!
ES6 (inspired by sendy halim's answer below):
myFunction.name
Explanation on MDN. As of 2015 works in nodejs and all major browsers except IE.
Note: On bound functions this will give "bound <originalName>". You will have to strip the "bound " if you want to get the original name.
ES5 (inspired by Vlad's answer):
If you have a reference to the function, you can do:
function functionName( func )
{
// Match:
// - ^ the beginning of the string
// - function the word 'function'
// - \s+ at least some white space
// - ([\w\$]+) capture one or more valid JavaScript identifier characters
// - \s* optionally followed by white space (in theory there won't be any here,
// so if performance is an issue this can be omitted[1]
// - \( followed by an opening brace
//
var result = /^function\s+([\w\$]+)\s*\(/.exec( func.toString() )
return result ? result[ 1 ] : '' // for an anonymous function there won't be a match
}
I have not run unit tests on this, or verified implementation
differences, but in principle it should work, if not leave a comment.
Note: won't work on bound functions
Note: that caller and callee are considered deprecated.
[1] I include it here because it is legal and often enough syntax highlighting tools fail to take into account the white space between function name and parenthesis. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any implementation of .toString() that will include white space here, so that's why you can omit it.
As an answer to the original question, I would drop parasitic inheritance and go for some more traditional OOP design patterns. I wrote a TidBits.OoJs to comfortably write OOP code in JavaScript with a feature set mimicking C++ (not yet complete, but mostly).
I see from the comments that you would like to avoid passing information parent needs to it's constructor. I must admit that traditional design patterns won't save you from that one though, since it is generally a considered a good thing to make your dependencies obvious and enforced.
I would also suggest to steer away from anonymous functions. They only make debugging and profiling a PITA because everything just shows up as "anonymous function", and there is no benefit to them that I'm aware of.
what you're doing is assigning unnamed function to a variable. you probably need named function expression instead ( http://kangax.github.com/nfe/ ).
var x = function x() {
console.log( arguments.callee.name );
}
x();
however I'm not sure how much cross-browser that is; there's an issue with IE6 that makes you function's name leak to the outer scope. also, arguments.callee is kind of deprecated and will result in error if you're using strict mode.
It looks like the most stupid thing, that I wrote in my life, but it's funny :D
function getName(d){
const error = new Error();
const firefoxMatch = (error.stack.split('\n')[0 + d].match(/^.*(?=#)/) || [])[0];
const chromeMatch = ((((error.stack.split('at ') || [])[1 + d] || '').match(/(^|\.| <| )(.*[^(<])( \()/) || [])[2] || '').split('.').pop();
const safariMatch = error.stack.split('\n')[0 + d];
// firefoxMatch ? console.log('firefoxMatch', firefoxMatch) : void 0;
// chromeMatch ? console.log('chromeMatch', chromeMatch) : void 0;
// safariMatch ? console.log('safariMatch', safariMatch) : void 0;
return firefoxMatch || chromeMatch || safariMatch;
}
d - depth of stack. 0 - return this function name, 1 - parent, etc.;
[0 + d] - just for understanding - what happens;
firefoxMatch - works for safari, but I had really a little time for testing, because mac's owner had returned after smoking, and drove me away :'(
Testing:
function limbo(){
for(let i = 0; i < 4; i++){
console.log(getName(i));
}
}
function lust(){
limbo();
}
function gluttony(){
lust();
}
gluttony();
Result:
Chrome:
Fitefox:
This solution was creating only just for fun! Don't use it for real projects. It does not depend on ES specification, it depends only on browser realization. After the next chrome/firefox/safari update it may be broken.
More than that there is no error (ha) processing - if d will be more than stack length - you will get an error;
For other browsers error's message pattern - you will get an error;
It must work for ES6 classes (.split('.').pop()), but you sill can get an error;
Any constructor exposes a property name, which is the function name. You access the constructor via an instance (using new) or a prototype:
function Person() {
console.log(this.constructor.name); //Person
}
var p = new Person();
console.log(p.constructor.name); //Person
console.log(Person.prototype.constructor.name); //Person
This might work for you:
function foo() { bar(); }
function bar() { console.log(bar.caller.name); }
running foo() will output "foo" or undefined if you call from an anonymous function.
It works with constructors too, in which case it would output the name of the calling constructor (eg "Foo").
More info here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/Caller
They claim it's non-standard, but also that it's supported by all major browsers: Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera and IE.
You can't. Functions don't have names according to the standard (though mozilla has such an attribute) - they can only be assigned to variables with names.
Also your comment:
// access fully qualified name (ie "my.namespace.myFunc")
is inside the function my.namespace.myFunc.getFn
What you can do is return the constructor of an object created by new
So you could say
var obj = new my.namespace.myFunc();
console.info(obj.constructor); //my.namespace.myFunc
You could use this, for browsers that support Error.stack (not nearly all, probably)
function WriteSomeShitOut(){
var a = new Error().stack.match(/at (.*?) /);
console.log(a[1]);
}
WriteSomeShitOut();
of course this is for the current function, but you get the idea.
happy drooling while you code
You could use Function.name:
In most implementations of JavaScript, once you have your constructor's reference in scope, you can get its string name from its name property (e.g. Function.name, or Object.constructor.name
You could use Function.callee:
The native arguments.caller method has been deprecated, but most browsers support Function.caller, which will return the actual invoking object (its body of code):
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/caller?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=JavaScript%2FReference%2FGlobal_Objects%2FFunction%2Fcaller
You could create a source map:
If what you need is the literal function signature (the "name" of it) and not the object itself, you might have to resort to something a little more customized, like creating an array reference of the API string values you'll need to access frequently. You can map them together using Object.keys() and your array of strings
You can use name property to get the function name, unless you're using an anonymous function
For example:
var Person = function Person () {
this.someMethod = function () {};
};
Person.prototype.getSomeMethodName = function () {
return this.someMethod.name;
};
var p = new Person();
// will return "", because someMethod is assigned with anonymous function
console.log(p.getSomeMethodName());
now let's try with named function
var Person = function Person () {
this.someMethod = function someMethod() {};
};
now you can use
// will return "someMethod"
p.getSomeMethodName()
You can use constructor name like:
{your_function}.prototype.constructor.name
this code simply return name of a method.
as part as ECMAScript 6 you can use Function.name method
function doSomething() {}
alert(doSomething.name); // alerts "doSomething"
I know this is a old question but lately I've been facing some similar issue while trying to decorate some React Component's methods, for debugging purposes. As people already said, arguments.caller and arguments.callee are forbidden in strict mode which is probably enabled by default in your React transpiling. You can either disable it, or I've been able to come up with another hack, because in React all class functions are named, you can actually do this:
Component.prototype.componentWillMount = function componentWillMount() {
console.log('Callee name: ', this.__proto__.constructor.toString().substr(0,30));
...
}
This worked for me.
function AbstractDomainClass() {
this.className = function() {
if (!this.$className) {
var className = this.constructor.toString();
className = className.substr('function '.length);
className = className.substr(0, className.indexOf('('));
this.$className = className;
}
return this.$className;
}
}
Test code:
var obj = new AbstractDomainClass();
expect(obj.className()).toBe('AbstractDomainClass');
I had a similar problem and I solved it as follows:
Function.prototype.myname = function() {
return this.toString()
.substr( 0, this.toString().indexOf( "(" ) )
.replace( "function ", "" );
}
This code implements, in a more comfortable fashion, one response I already read here at the top of this discussion.
Now I have a member function retrieving the name of any function object.
Here's the full script ...
<script language="javascript" TYPE="text/javascript">
Function.prototype.myname = function() {
return this.toString()
.substr( 0, this.toString().indexOf( "(" ) )
.replace("function ", "" );
}
function call_this( _fn ) { document.write( _fn.myname() ); }
function _yeaaahhh() { /* do something */ }
call_this( _yeaaahhh );
</script>
If I understood what you wanted to do, this is what I do inside a function constructor.
if (!(this instanceof arguments.callee)) {
throw "ReferenceError: " + arguments.callee.name + " is not defined";
}
This will work in ES5, ES6, all browsers and strict mode functions.
Here's how it looks with a named function.
(function myName() {
console.log(new Error().stack.split(/\r\n|\r|\n/g)[1].trim());
})();
at myName (<anonymous>:2:15)
Here's how it looks with an anonymous function.
(() => {
console.log(new Error().stack.split(/\r\n|\r|\n/g)[1].trim());
})();
at <anonymous>:2:15
A simple solution to dynamically retrieve function names [like magic variables] is the use of scoped variables.
{
function parent() {
console.log(a.name);
}; let a = parent
}
{
function child() {
console.log(a.name)
}; let a = child
};
parent();//logs parent
child();//logs child
Note: Nested functions cease to be source elements, and are hence not hoisted.
Also, this technique cannot work with anonymous functions.
Just try Function.name
const func1 = function() {};
const object = {
func2: function() {}
};
console.log(func1.name);
// expected output: "func1"
console.log(object.func2.name);
// expected output: "func2"
look here: http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1209619
arguments.callee.toString();
seems to be right for your needs.
Easy way to get function name from within fuction you are running.
function x(){alert(this.name)};x()
you can use Error.stack to trace the function name and exact position of where you are in it.
See stacktrace.js
Related
I would like to override a Javascript built-in function with a new version that calls the original (similarly to overriding a method on a class with a version that calls super in many languages). How can I do this?
For example...
window.alert = function(str) {
//do something additional
if(console) console.log(str);
//super.alert(str) // How do I do this bit?
}
Store a reference to the original function in a variable:
(function() {
var _alert = window.alert; // <-- Reference
window.alert = function(str) {
// do something additional
if(console) console.log(str);
//return _alert.apply(this, arguments); // <-- The universal method
_alert(str); // Suits for this case
};
})();
The universal way is <original_func_reference>.apply(this, arguments) - To preserve context and pass all arguments. Usually, the return value of the original method should also be returned.
However, it's known that alert is a void function, takes only one argument, and does not use the this object. So, _alert(str) is sufficient in this case.
Note: IE <= 8 throws an error if you try to overwrite alert, so make sure that you're using window.alert = ... instead of alert = ....
There is no "super". Anyway, create a closure to "keep" around the original function-object.
Note the "self invoking function" that returns a new function-object (that is assigned to the window.alert property). The new function-object returned creates a closure around the variable original which evaluates to the original value of window.alert that was passed in to the "self invoking function".
window.alert = (function (original) {
return function (str) {
//do something additional
if(console) {
console.log(str)
}
original(str)
}
})(window.alert)
However, I believe some browsers may prevent alert and other built-ins from being modified...
Happy coding.
I'm assuming your question is how do you overwrite a built-in and still be able to call it. First off as a disclaimer, you should never overwrite built ins unless you have a good reason for doing it since it will make it impossible to debug/test.
This is how you would do it:
window._alert = window.alert;
window.alert = function(str) {
if(console) console.log(str);
window._alert(str);
}
How to do simple classical inheritance in Javascript:
SuperClass.call(this) // inherit from SuperClass (multiple inheritance yes)
How to override functions:
this.myFunction = this.myFunction.override(
function(){
this.superFunction(); // call the overridden function
}
);
The override function is created like this:
Function.prototype.override = function(func)
{
var superFunction = this;
return function()
{
this.superFunction = superFunction;
return func.apply(this,arguments);
};
};
Works with multiple arguments.
Fails when trying to override undefined or nonfunctions.
Makes "superFunction" a "reserved" word :-)
JavaScript does not use a classical inheritance model. There is a nice article here which describes a way to write your classes so that a similar syntax can be used, but it's not natively supported.
By using proxy object you can do this.
window.alert = new Proxy(window.alert , {
apply: function(target,that,args){
console && console.log(args.join('\n'));
target.apply(that,args)
}})
I am attempting to build my first custom object and it looks something like this:
function URLObject()
{
this.syllables = new Array();
etc...
this.AddtoSyllables = AddtoSyllables;
function AddtoSyllables(AWord)
{
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
}
var myobj = new URLObject();
myobj.AdtoSyllables("text");
The execution of the above code results in the JS engine printing out the following:
This is Sylcount: NAN
-or-
This is SylCount: undefined.
I have looked at information in Head First Javascript, in the Javascript bible, and on various JS websites. All of them cover in exhaustive detail the use of arrays of objects, but none of them discuss arrays within objects.
And yet I am doing something wrong here and I do not know what. Can anyone help?
Here you go:
function URLObject()
{
this.syllables = [];
etc...
}
URLObject.prototype.addToSyllables = function(aWord) {
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
var myobj = new URLObject();
myobj.adtoSyllables("text");
.prototype adds the function declared after it to every object constructed by the constructor function. (in your case every object that was instantiated by new URLObject())
Firstly, the code as posted actually works for me on Chrome and Firefox; so this must depend on the JavaScript engine, or else there's something funky going on.
Update: I suspect what may be confusing you is some separate call to AddtoSyllables (in code you haven't shown us) where suddenly this.syllables is no longer defined. This is where the behavior of this can get confusing. I've created a jsFiddle to hopefully explain how it works a bit better for you.
http://jsfiddle.net/J3tUb/
That said, it is often very possible to write code like this without having to use this (or the prototype) at all. For instance:
function createURLObject() {
// Use closed-over locals instead of attaching properties.
var syllables = new Array();
function AddToSyllables(AWord) {
// Since syllables is closed over, it is accessible here
// (but WON'T be accessible outside this scope).
syllables.push(AWord);
return syllables.length;
}
// Expose whatever functionality you want to be "public"
// in the returned object.
return {
AddToSyllables: AddToSyllables
};
}
var myObj = createURLObject();
myObj.AddToSyllables("text");
It is, of course, valuable to understand JavaScript's quirky (and surprising, to most developers coming from other languages) behavior with respect to this. That said, once you do understand it, I suspect you will find that it can often be avoided altogether.
you need to do this :
function URLObject()
{
var that = this;
that.AddtoSyllables = AddtoSyllables;
function AddtoSyllables(AWord)
etc...
Like this you can add method and attributes to one object.
The issue you are having is that the function AddtoSyllables is not a member function or method of the URLObject. It is just a nested function with no object attachments, so all usages of this will result in returning the dom window object. The correct way of declaring the AddtoSyllables function is this:
function URLObject()
{
//...
}
URLObject.prototype.AddtoSyllables = function (AWord)
{
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
To explain the reasons of the behavior in the question, I'd like to clarify that objects in javascript are treated like a map, dictionary or a key-value pair (use the term what suits you best). Using the syntax x.y = value; is equivalent putting the value value into the map x with key y. Having the code:
this.AddtoSyllables = AddtoSyllables;
function AddtoSyllables(AWord)
{
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
adds the AddtoSyllables function as an entry to the object this points to.
The code
myobj.AdtoSyllables(...)
is equivalent to
myobj["AdtoSyllables"](...) // now a retreiaval operation
or even
var fn = myobj["AdtoSyllables"];
fn (...);
Inside the AdtoSyllables function, this is used. Against common expectations, it is not a pointer to the myobj.
The cause of this is that AddtoSyllables is treated as a static method of the URLObject class (as OOP guys would understand it), or even a loose static function (like in C). To make JS treat it like a member of the URLObject object (an instance method to OOP guys), JS must be told to do so. This is achieved through the URLObject.prototype.AddtoSyllables = .... which equivalents to declaration of an instance method.
From an alternative point of view:
function foo() { /* some code using `this` */ }
var bar = {};
var baz = {};
bar.foo = foo; // same as bar["foo"] = foo;
baz.foo = foo; // same az baz["foo"] = foo;
In the above code, this usages inside foo will neither point to bar, nor baz. At the same time bar.foo will point to the very same instance as baz.foo, for foo is also an object.
I recently looked into the code of firebugs console.log by calling console.log.toString() and got this:
function () { return Function.apply.call(x.log, x, arguments); }
As long as I understand this causes Function.apply to be called with its this referring to x.log and the arguments being x and arguments. Since Function.apply itself calls functions this will result in x.log to be called with its this referring to x and arguments as its arguments.
Which leads me to my question: Is there any reason to call Function.apply this way instead of just using Function.prototype.apply? Or in other words, is there any difference between the above and return x.log.apply(x, arguments)?
Edit: Since it's open source I took a quick look at the firebug sourcecode and found the place where this is created (consoleInjector.js, line 73):
// Construct a script string that defines a function. This function returns
// an object that wraps every 'console' method. This function will be evaluated
// in a window content sandbox and return a wrapper for the 'console' object.
// Note that this wrapper appends an additional frame that shouldn't be displayed
// to the user.
var expr = "(function(x) { return {\n";
for (var p in console)
{
var func = console[p];
if (typeof(func) == "function")
{
expr += p + ": function() { return Function.apply.call(x." + p +
", x, arguments); },\n";
}
}
expr += "};})";
// Evaluate the function in the window sandbox/scope and execute. The return value
// is a wrapper for the 'console' object.
var sandbox = Cu.Sandbox(win);
var getConsoleWrapper = Cu.evalInSandbox(expr, sandbox);
win.wrappedJSObject.console = getConsoleWrapper(console);
I'm almost sure now that this has something to do with Function to be in a different scope, which is what I sayed in my first comment to pst's answer, but I still don't fully understand it. I may do a bit further research about that.
Consider this:
Function.hasOwnProperty("apply") // false
Function.apply == Function.prototype.apply // true
Function.__proto__ == Function.prototype // true in FF which exposes proto
So Function.apply works because Function's [[prototype]] is Function.prototype. In this case both ought to work as desired.
However, consider that normal [GetProperty] rules still apply:
var f = function () {};
f.apply = "nubbits";
f.apply(/* err */);
Granted, I'd consider it "questionable code" to change the behavior of apply (and especially in an incompatible manner), but it's possible that the two forms differ .. Personally, I do not accommodate such hypothetical situations and I use f.apply in my code.
I've seen objects defined in two different ways, which function similarly, but are, of course, fundamentally different. You can do it either like this:
var myobject = {property: 'hello',
act: function() {
this.property += ' world';
}};
and like this:
function myobject() {
this.property = 'hello';
this.act = function() {
this.property += 'world';
}
}
The second method could create objects like so
var newobj = new myobject();
but you could do something similar using the first notation by making the object the return value of a function. The new keyword has the advantage of being able to pass parameters that can be used to initialize the properties of the object, but you could just as easily add an init function to the first kind of object.
Just wondering if besides these two differences, if there was a fundamental difference that made one method definitely better than the other method.
The second is better because you can reuse it. In addition, the constructor property of the constructed object is different in each case.
That aside, the second method wastes space by allocating a new function to the act property each time you call the constructor. (Note that the first method also wastes space in the same way.) Use prototypes instead:
function MyConstructor () {
this.property = 'hello';
}
MyConstructor.prototype = {
act: function () {
this.property += 'world';
}
};
MyConstructor.prototype.constructor = MyConstructor;
var obj = new MyConstructor ();
var f = function () {};
function g () {}
if (typeof(f) === typeof(g)) {
alert(typeof(f) + "\n" + f + "\n" + g);
}
The types are identical and variable f has an anonymous function assigned to it. Since f is a named variable with a function as its value it is a function that is not anonymous. JavaScript is a lambda language of downward inheritance that allows accidental creation of global variables. With regard to complex instances of inheritance where closures are used across the variance namespace scopes you have to be sure where your variables are defined to prevent collisions, especially with consideration for reuse. The first convention forces strict awareness of variable declaration, because the function must be declared before it can be executed. The second convention supplies no such awareness, which is potentially problematic with regards to instantiation and invocation as closure in complex logic prior described. Fortunately, JSLint is smart enough to throw an error when a function is used before it is declared. Since the two conventions are identical in representation I would suggest only using the one that is not open to abuse from flawed and sloppy programming.
In summary if g and f are both named variables with a function as assignment then always do it the right way using the first convention where you declare your variable using the var keyword.
javascript:
canDo="b:c=function(){}";
canNot="function a:d(){}";
eval(canDo);
alert(["Can do ",canDo,
".\n\n\nConfirmed result is: \n\n b:c=",
eval("b:c")
].join(""));
alert(
confirm(
"Click OK to confirm this is not valid (can NOT do):\n\n" + canNot) ?
eval(canNot) : "Test will fail if attempted and 'a:d' will not exist."
);
displays, in FireFox:
Can do b:c=function(){}.
Confirmed result is:
b:c=function () {
}
and
Click OK to confirm this is not valid (can NOT do):
function a:d(){}
which gives a runtime error if OK is chosen.
I'm trying to get the name of the currently running function. From what I've read, this should be possible using:
(arguments.callee.toString()).match(/function\s+(\[^\s\(]+)/)
However, when I run this in Firefox and Safari (latest versions on Mac) the name is not returned.
console.log( arguments.callee ) returns the source of the function, but not the assigned name. arguments.callee.name returns an empty string.
My sample code is as follows:
var testobj = {
testfunc: function(){
console.log( (arguments.callee.toString()).match(/function\s+(\[^\s\(]+)/) );
}
}
testobj.testfunc();
You declared an anonymous function with
function(){
You should declare it as
function testfunc(){
to get the name printed.
The typical arguments.callee hacks don't work here because what you've done is assigned an anonymous function as the value for the object's 'testfunc' key. In this case the hacking even gets worse, but it can be done, as follows:
var testobj = {
testfunc: function(){
for (var attr in testobj) {
if (testobj[attr] == arguments.callee.toString()) {
alert(attr);
break;
}
}
}
}
testobj.testfunc();
On firefox 3.5, Safari 5, and Chrome 6.0 you can use:
function myFunctionName() {
alert("Name is " + arguments.callee.name );
}
myFunctionName();
You can also get the function that called the current one using arguments.callee.caller.
/function\s+(\[^\s\(]+)/
What's with the backslash before [? I don't think you want a literal square bracket here. Without that it should work.
Although I'd strongly recommend against anything to do with sniffing function name or especially sniffing caller function. Almost anything you might do using these hideous hacks will be better done using some combination of closures and lookups.
I think there's a much cleaner and elegant solution to all this. Assuming the function is a member of some higher-level object—and that's always going to be the case, even if the function's owner is "window" or some other global object, we can access the global object via the this keyword, we can access the function itself via arguments.callee and we can access all the parent's object (function) names via for (var o in this), so you should be able to get the desired information fairly easily as...
returnMyName = function() {
for (var o in this) {
if (arguments.callee===this[o]) return o;
}
};
That should be robust and avoid any weird IE browser behaviors accessing named functions, etc.
Function.prototype.getName = function(fn) {
if(Function.name || Function.prototype.name) return this.name;
return this.toString().match(/^function\s+(\w+)\s*\(/)[1];
};
First of all, the function doesn't have a name. The function name is what you put in-between function and the arguments list (...). Here's how to get a function's name (don't use the name property, as it can be changed):
var fName = arguments.callee.toString(0).match(
/^function\s*(?:\s+([\w\$]*))?\s*\(/
);
fName = (fName ? fName[1] : "");
I found that if you simply log the function object, like so:
console.log(arguments.callee)
or
console.debug(arguments.callee)
that you simply get the function name in the console log with some options.