Develop Reference

How can I make privileged JS methods?

I want to be able to call sub-functions that work with private data. Currently I have this:
var myFunction4 = function() {
this.secret1 = 0;
this.secret2 = 0;
var that = this;
this.iterate1 = function(){
return that.secret1++;
}
this.iterate2 = function(){
return that.secret2++;
}
this.addSecrets = function(){
return that.secret1 + that.secret2;
}
return {
iterate1: this.iterate1,
iterate2: this.iterate2,
addSecrets: this.addSecrets,
}
};
The bad thing about this is that to call one of the methods, I have to do:
myFunction4().iterate1();
Which executes myFunction4() every single time I want to access a method. Not only is this inefficient, but it resets secret1 each time so I can't iterate it. I've tried using the new operator, but that exposes secret1 and secret2, and it messes up the ability to nest functions deeply.
var myFunction3 = function() {
this.secret1 = 0;
this.secret2 = 0;
this.iterate1 = function(){
return this.secret1++;
}
this.iterate2 = function(){
return this.secret2++;
}
this.addSecrets = function(){
return this.secret1 + this.secret2;
}
};
var f3 = new myFunction3();
f3.secret1; // exposes the secret!
See the console logs at the bottom of this JSFiddle for more examples.
How can I have a function with both private and public vars/methods which retain their values and don't need to be called multiple times?

While the other answers are absolutely fine and correct, there is one more issue to consider when emulating OOP behaviour in javascript.
The function execution context issue will bite us hard when we will try to use a public method as a e.g. async. callback.
The magical this will point to a different object then we expect in the OOP world.
Of course there are ways to bind the context but why to worry about this after we define the 'class' in a non OOP js ;)
Here is a simple solution to this: Do not use this. Let the closure refactor this out ;)
var myFunction4 = function() {
// we could inherit here from another 'class' (object)
// by replacing `this` with e.g. `new SuperClass()`
var that = this;
// 'private' variables
var secret1 = 0;
var secret2 = 0;
// 'public' variables
that.somePublicVar = 4;
// 'private' methods
var somePrivateMethod = function(){
secret2 = 77;
that.somePublicVar = 77;
}
// 'public' methods
that.iterate1 = function(){
return secret1++;
}
that.iterate2 = function(){
return secret2++;
}
that.addSecrets = function(){
return secret1 + secret2;
}
return that;
};
var f = new myFunction4();
console.log( f.iterate1() ); // 0
console.log( f.iterate1() ); // 1
console.log( f.secret1 ); //undefined
console.log( f.somePublicVar ); //4

Try that (closures power!):
var myFunction3 = function() {
var secret1 = 0;
var secret2 = 0;
this.iterate1 = function(){
return secret1++;
}
this.iterate2 = function(){
return secret2++;
}
this.addSecrets = function(){
return secret1 + secret2;
}
};
var f3 = new myFunction3();
now only the methods are exposeds
Edited version:
If you don't wanna execute the main function every time you call sub-method, you can change a bit your approach and use the power of IIFE (immediately-invoked function expression)
var myFunction4 = (function() {
var secret1 = 0;
var secret2 = 0;
var iterate1 = function(){
return secret1++;
}
var iterate2 = function(){
return secret2++;
}
var addSecrets = function(){
return secret1 + secret2;
}
return {
iterate1: iterate1,
iterate2: iterate2,
addSecrets: addSecrets
}
}());
Then you can use this:
myFunction4.iterate1();
myFunction4.iterate2();
myFunction4.addSecrets();
Hope this helps you

I generally only use the factory pattern to create objects unless I absolutely need to have the performance benefits of prototypical inheritance.
Using the factory pattern also means you don't have to deal with the ever changing value of this in different contexts.
var factory = function() {
// internal private state
var state = {
secret1: 0,
secret2: 0
}
function iterate1(){
return state.secret1++;
}
function iterate2(){
return state.secret2++;
}
function addSecrets(){
return state.secret1 + state.secret2;
}
function __privateMethod() {
// this is private because it's not on the returned object
}
// this is the public api
return {
iterate1,
iterate2,
addSecrets
}
}
// create a secret module
var secret = factory()
console.log(
secret.iterate1(), // 0
secret.iterate2(), // 0
secret.addSecrets(), // 2
secret.secret1, // undefined
secret.secret2 // undefined
)
// you can even create more with the same factory
var secret2 = factory()

Why don't you try Revealing Module Pattern
var myFunction4 = function() {
var secret1 = 0,
secret2 = 0,
iterate1 = function(){
return secret1++;
},
iterate2 = function(){
return secret2++;
},
addSecrets = function(){
return secret1 + secret2;
};
// public functions and properties
return {
iterate1: iterate1,
iterate2: iterate2,
addSecrets: addSecrets,
}
}();
myFunction4.iterate1(); // is available
myFunction4.secret2; // is private and not available outside of myFunction4
Hope it helps

A basic pattern:
var myFunction = function() {
var that = this;
var secret1 = 0;
var secret2 = 0; // private
this.public1 = 0; // public
this.iterate1 = function(){
return secret1++;
}
this.iterate2 = function(){
return secret2++;
}
this.addSecrets = function() { // public
return privateMethod();
}
var privateMethod = function() { // private
return secret1 + secret2;
}
return this; // return function itself!
};
var myFn = new myFunction();
myFn.public1 // 0
myFn.secret1 // undefined
myFn.addSecrets();
I recommend you to read the excellent Learning JavaScript Design Patterns by Addy Osmani.

What I understand from your explanation as per your second snippet is that you need a sharedPrivate among the instantiated objects. You can not do this with classical object creation patterns like constructor, factory or module. This is possible by taking a private variable under closure in the prototype of the constructor so that it doesn't get reset each time an object is created and at the meantime the instantiated objects are provided with necessary methods to access, modify and share it privately.
function SharedPrivate(){
var secret = 0;
this.constructor.prototype.getSecret = function(){return secret}
this.constructor.prototype.setSecret = function(v){ secret = v;}
this.constructor.prototype.incrementSecret = function(){secret++}
}
var o1 = new SharedPrivate();
var o2 = new SharedPrivate();
console.log(o1.getSecret()); // 0
console.log(o2.getSecret()); // 0
o1.setSecret(7);
console.log(o1.getSecret()); // 7
console.log(o2.getSecret()); // 7
o2.incrementSecret()
console.log(o1.getSecret()); // 8
And another method of getting a similar result would be
function SharedPrivate(){
var secret = 0;
return {getS : function(){return secret},
setS : function(v){secret = v},
incS : function(){secret++}
};
}
sharedProto = SharedPrivate(); // secret is now under closure to be shared
var o1 = Object.create(sharedProto); // sharedProto becomes o1.__proto__
var o2 = Object.create(sharedProto); // sharedProto becomes o2.__proto__
o1.setS(7); // o1 sets secret to 7
console.log(o2.getS()); // when o2 access it secret is still 7
o2.incS(); // o2 increments the secret
console.log(o1.getS()); // o1 can access the incremented value

Writing a function to set some but not necessarily all parameters in another function

I had a coding interview test that asked the following question which I was not able to fully solve. I'm wondering the best way to do this following my approach -- also sorry this is long.
You are given a function to read in like this (not necessarily 2 parameters):
function add(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
The objective is to create a function to initialize some of those variables and again call the function to perform the calculation like, function setParam(func, params). To use this you would do the following:
_add = setParam(add, {b:9})
_add(10) // should return 19
My solution was to parse the function to see how many parameters there are, then set them using the given parameters but since I barely know javascript I was never able to actually return a function with only some variables set and others still undefined.
(attempt at solution)
function setParam(func, params) {
// varray is an array of the the varriables from the function, func
// ie varray = [a,b] in this test
var varray = /function[^\(]*\(([^\)]*)\)/.exec(func.toString())[1].split(',');
//creates an array, paramset, that has the variables in func defined
//where possible
// ex paramset = [a,9] if only b was set
var paramsset = []
for (i = 0; i < varray.length; i++) {
if (typeof(params[varray[i]]) == "undefined"){
paramsset[i] = varray[i];
} else {
paramsset[i] = params[varray[i]];
}
}
//////
// need to modify existing function and return with added parameters
// where I'm stuck as this doesn't work.
newfunc = (function(){
var _func = func;
return function() {
return _func.apply(this, paramsset);
}
})();
newfunc()
}
I'm sure I'm not doing this the correct way, but any help would be appreciated.

I'm certainly not advocating to go towards that solution, but I still implemented something to follow your initial's API design for fun. The signatures weak map is necessary in order to preserve the initial function's signature so that we can call setParams again on partially applied functions.
var setParams = (function () {
var signatures = new WeakMap();
return function (fn, paramsToApply) {
var signature = signatureOf(fn), newFn;
validateParams(paramsToApply, signature.params);
newFn = function () {
var params = appliedParamsFrom(arguments, paramsToApply, signature.indexes);
return fn.apply(this, params);
};
signatures.set(newFn, signature);
return newFn;
};
function signatureOf(fn) {
return signatures.has(fn)?
signatures.get(fn) :
parseSignatureOf(fn);
}
function parseSignatureOf(fn) {
return String(fn)
.match(/function.*?\((.*?)\)/)[1]
.replace(/\s+/g, '')
.split(',')
.reduce(function (r, param, index) {
r.indexes[param] = index;
r.params.push(param);
return r;
}, { indexes: {}, params: [] });
}
function validateParams(paramsToApply, actualParams) {
Object.keys(paramsToApply).forEach(function (param) {
if (actualParams.indexOf(param) == -1) throw new Error("parameter '" + param + "' could not be found in the function's signature which is: 'function (" + actualParams + ")'");
});
}
function appliedParamsFrom(args, paramsToApply, paramsIndex) {
var appliedParams = [],
usedIndexes = [],
argsIndex = 0,
argsLen = args.length,
argSpotIndex = 0;
Object.keys(paramsToApply).forEach(function (param) {
var index = paramsIndex[param];
appliedParams[index] = paramsToApply[param];
usedIndexes.push(index);
});
while (argsIndex < argsLen) {
if (usedIndexes.indexOf(argSpotIndex) == -1) {
appliedParams[argSpotIndex] = args[argsIndex++];
}
++argSpotIndex;
}
return appliedParams;
}
})();
function add(a, b) { return a + b; }
var addTo9 = setParams(add, { b: 9 });
var add10To9 = setParams(addTo9, { a: 10 });
document.write(addTo9(10) + ', ' + add10To9());
Now, note that JavaScript comes with the Function.prototype.bind function which allows to perform in-order partial function application. The first parameter to bind has nothing to do with arguments, it's to bind the this value.
function add(a, b) { return a + b; }
var addTo9 = add.bind(null, 9);
document.write(addTo9(10));
And finally, an implementation with a placholder if you need one:
var partial = (function (undefined) {
var PLACEHOLDER = {};
function partial(fn, partialArgs) {
return function () {
return fn.apply(this, applyPartialArgs(arguments, partialArgs));
};
}
Object.defineProperty(partial, 'PLACEHOLDER', {
get: function () { return PLACEHOLDER; }
});
return partial;
function applyPartialArgs(args, partialArgs) {
var appliedArgs = partialArgs.map(function (arg) {
return arg === PLACEHOLDER? undefined : arg;
}),
partialArgsLen = partialArgs.length,
argsLen = args.length,
argsIndex = 0,
argSpotIndex = 0;
while (argsIndex < argsLen) {
if (
partialArgs[argSpotIndex] === PLACEHOLDER ||
argSpotIndex >= partialArgsLen
) {
appliedArgs[argSpotIndex] = args[argsIndex++];
}
++argSpotIndex;
}
return appliedArgs;
}
})();
function add(a, b, c, d) {
return a + b + c + d;
}
var _ = partial.PLACEHOLDER;
var addTo9 = partial(add, [_, 5, _, 4]);
document.write(addTo9(5, 5));

I'm guessing that they might have been testing for knowledge of partial application. (not currying)
Edit: Edited based upon your comments. This is Crockford's curry function straight from his book.
function add(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
if (!Function.prototype.partial) {
Function.prototype.partial = function() {
var slice = Array.prototype.slice,
args = new Array(arguments.length),
that = this;
for (var i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
args[i] = arguments[i];
}
return function() {
return that.apply(null, args.concat(slice.apply(arguments)));
}
};
}
var example = add.partial(4);
console.log(example(10)); // output 14
console.log(example(20)); // output 24
var example = adder(4) assigns example to be function with a closure with a (in this case 4). When example is called like in the console.log, it will in effect be returning "the value of a when example was assigned, plus this new number."
Walkthrough of the partial() function:
Converts arguments to an array
returns a function gets passed the arguments given, which can be called later. It has a closure with the previously assigned arguments.

Create an object with modified versions of all methods in a source object [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I want to create an object that has modified versions of all of the methods in a source object, but I'm having trouble using for...in.
If this is my source object:
var raw = {};
raw.add = function(a,b){return a + b;}
raw.sub = function(a,b){return a - b;}
raw.neg = function(a){return -a;}
raw.sqrt = function(a){return Math.sqrt(a);}
It works if I recreate the list of properties in an array of strings:
var mod2 = Object.create(raw);
var proplist = ["add", "sub", "neg", "sqrt"];
proplist.forEach(function(prop){
mod2[prop] = function(){
var arglist = [].slice.apply(arguments);
var out = [];
if(arglist.length == 1){
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function(d){ out.push(raw[prop](d)); });
}
else if(arglist.length == 2){
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function(d1){
[].concat(arglist[1]).forEach(function(d2){
out.push(raw[prop](d1,d2));
})
});
}
return out;
}
});
But my attempt to use for..in doesn't work, all of the methods in the new object will do "sqrt":
var modified = Object.create(raw);
for(prop in raw){
modified[prop] = function(){
var arglist = [].slice.apply(arguments);
var out = [];
if(arglist.length == 1){
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function(d){ out.push(raw[prop](d)); });
}
else if(arglist.length == 2){
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function(d1){
[].concat(arglist[1]).forEach(function(d2){
out.push(raw[prop](d1,d2));
})
});
}
return out;
}
}
What is the best way to iterate through the methods automatically?

The issue with your second implementation is that you are using prop in your new method (which will be called sometime later), but the for loop that creates prop has already run to completion by the time that method is called sometime later so prop is not the right value any more (it will always be the last property). I fixed that in my implementation by capturing prop in an IIFE (immediately invoked function expression) so it would be frozen separately for each pass through the for loop. Your first implementation doesn't have that problem because you're using .forEach() on the array of properties which uses a callback function which captures the value of prop for you automatically into a closure.
So here's the result with these changes to your implementation:
Add an IIFE to freeze the value of prop for use in the new methods.
Add an extra check to make sure the methods we're copying are not inherited and are functions.
Initialized raw to a plain object as I don't see any reason to use Object.create() here.
The code:
var raw = {};
raw.add = function(a,b){return a + b;}
raw.sub = function(a,b){return a - b;}
raw.neg = function(a){return -a;}
raw.sqrt = function(a){return Math.sqrt(a);}
var modified = {};
for (prop in raw) {
if (raw.hasOwnProperty(prop) && typeof raw[prop] === "function") {
(function (prop) {
modified[prop] = function () {
var arglist = [].slice.apply(arguments);
var out = [];
if (arglist.length == 1) {
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function (d) {
out.push(raw[prop](d));
});
} else if (arglist.length == 2) {
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function (d1) {
[].concat(arglist[1]).forEach(function (d2) {
out.push(raw[prop](d1, d2));
})
});
}
return out;
}
})(prop);
}
}
Working demo: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/5LcLh/

<script>
var raw = {};
raw.add = function () { console.log('add default method'); }
raw.sub = function () { console.log('sub default method'); }
raw.neg = function () { console.log('neg default method'); }
raw.sqrt = function () { console.log('sqrt default method'); }
console.log('*****************');
console.log('before modifying');
console.log('*****************');
raw.add();
raw.sub();
raw.neg();
raw.sqrt();
var proplist = ["add", "sub", "neg", "sqrt"];
console.log('*****************');
console.log('after modifying');
console.log('*****************');
console.log('');
var modified = Object.create(raw);
for (prop in proplist) {
if (prop == 0)
console.log('rewriting methods and calling methods inside loop................');
modified[proplist[prop]] = function () { console.log(proplist[prop] + ' method modified, ' + proplist.length + ' argument passed') }
modified[proplist[prop]]();
}
console.log('');
console.log('trying call methods after loop is done................');
modified.add();
modified.sub();
modified.neg();
modified.sqrt();
console.log('...it is becaouse "prop" variable in loop holding last count number ' + prop);
</script>

thanks to arnold.NET.JS's response clarifying the problem, I see that closure is one way to do it:
var raw = {};
raw.add = function(a,b){return a + b;}
raw.sub = function(a,b){return a - b;}
raw.neg = function(a){return -a;}
raw.sqrt = function(a){return Math.sqrt(a);}
var mod = Object.create(raw);
for(prop in raw){
mod[prop] = (function(){
var propname = prop;
function f(){
var arglist = [].slice.apply(arguments);
var out = [];
if(arglist.length == 1){
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function(d){ out.push(raw[propname](d)); });
}
else if(arglist.length == 2){
[].concat(arglist[0]).forEach(function(d1){
[].concat(arglist[1]).forEach(function(d2){
out.push(raw[propname](d1,d2));
})
});
}
return out;
}
return f;
})();
}

Javascript class "Object has no method error"

I have a class called question . I am trying to call this display method from another class by creating its correspoding object. But I get this error. Will be glad if you can help me with this.
///////////////QUESTION///////////////
function Question(id, text){
this.id = id;
this.text = text;
}
function QType1(id, text, choices, answers){
//this is true or false
Question.call(this, id, text) ;
this.choices = choices;
this.answers = answers;
}
QType1.prototype = new Question();
//inherit Question
QType1.prototype.constructor = QType1;
QType1.Display = function(){
console.log("Display Question");
}
///////////////QUIZ//////////////////
function quiz(){}
quiz.prototype.SetHomeScreen = function(x,y){
var svgCanvas = CreateCanvas(x,y);
AddText(svgCanvas,100,50, quiz_input.Settings.Layout.Text);
console.log("Text Added");
start_but = AddStartButton(svgCanvas, 300, 250);
console.log("start button Added");
start_but
.on("click", function(d,i) {
startquiz();
});
var startquiz = function(){
console.log(this);
quiz.prototype.StartQuiz();
};
}
quiz.prototype.question_objs = [];
quiz.prototype.user_ans = [];
quiz.prototype.corr_ans = [];
quiz.prototype.LoadQuestions = function(){
for(var i=0, l=questions.length; i<l; i++){
this.question_objs.push(new QType1(questions[i].id, questions[i].settings.text, questions[i].settings.choices, questions[i].settings.answers));
}
console.log(this.question_objs);
}
quiz.prototype.DisplayQuestions = function(){
var i = 0;
var l = this.question_objs.length;
while(i < l){
console.log(this.question_objs[i] instanceof QType1);
this.question_objs[i].Display();
}
}
quiz.prototype.StartQuiz = function(){
quiz.prototype.LoadQuestions();
console.log("Starting Quiz");
quiz.prototype.DisplayQuestions();
}
The Error Message which I get is.
Thanks in Advance

Two possible causes:
you didn't declare function Qtype1() {} and
you didn't instatiate a qtype1 object like so var q = new Qtype1()
EDIT: you didn't make Display a method of QType1.
The only way you could have a QType1.Display method is if you had declared QType1 as a variable, like var QType1 = {}
That way you could have a Display method directly bound to the variable. But as you declared it as a constructor you need QType1.prototype.Display = function () { console.log('Display question...'); };
Also - your inheritance is a bit messy. You're calling Question.call(this, id, text) then you're declaring QType1.prototype = new Question() and then doing the same with the constructor. You need to review your javascript prototypal inheritance theory a bit.

How to "new" a returned function in Javascript

I am trying to simulate a namespace feature in Javascript.
var com = {};
com.domain = {};
com.domain.system = {};
com.domain.net = {};
com.domain.net.ip = {};
com.domain.net.ip.tcp = {};
com.domain.net.ip.udp = {};
com.domain.net.ip.ssl = {};
com.domain.util = {};
com.domain.util.timer = {};
com.domain.plugins = {};
com.domain.session = {};
com.domain.io = {};
com.domain.algorithm = {};
com.domain.debug = {};
This is the namespaces declaration. Later I will add functions to these namespaces.
This is my selector function:
For a convenient way to use namespaces, I add a function named $. This function will walk all namespaces in com. If the selected name exists, return the object.
function $ (selector) {
function digger (namespace, selector) {
for (var prop in namespace) {
if (typeof namespace[prop] == "array" || typeof namespace[prop] == "object") {
if (prop == selector) {
return namespace[prop];
}
var dig = digger(namespace[prop], selector);
if (dig != null) {
return dig;
}
} else {
if (prop == selector) {
return namespace[prop];
}
}
}
}
return digger (com, selector);
}
After that, I add a timer to namespace com.doamin.util.
com.domain.util.timer = function () {
this._handle = new InnerObj.SystemTimer(io);
return this;
};
com.domain.util.timer.prototype.expiresFromNow = function (seconds, cbHandler) {
this._handle.ExpiresFromNow (seconds, cbHandler);
};
com.domain.util.timer.prototype.wait = function (seconds, cbHandler) {
this._handle.Wait (seconds, cbHandler);
};
com.domain.util.timer.prototype.expiresAt = function (seconds, cbHandler) {
this._handle.Wait (seconds, cbHandler);
};
com.domain.util.timer.prototype.cancel = function () {
this._handle.Cancel ();
};
Usage:
1. var timer = new com.domain.util.timer (); OK
timer.expiresAt (1, {}); OK
2. var func = $("timer"); OK
var timer = new func (); OK
timer.expiresAt (1, {}); OK
But but but but but
var timer = new $("timer") (); NG
Can anyone tell me why the last new function is not working?

Try var timer = new ($("timer"))();.
Your question is not clear but I guess since $("timer") returns a function, you want a new instance of the result of $("timer") and not a new instance of $().