Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a code source that contains a long variable name (postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight).
I don't want to rename this variable for the whole code source so that I easily continue the project, but to have a shorthand of its name. I tried following solution (which works) at the first declaration of the variable, but I am not sure if it is the correct way to do so. I have a different color of d in IDE:
var postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight= d= $('.post-scroller').outerHeight();
I am seeking by this question your usual expert advice.
No, this isn't really correct: you're not declaring the d variable, only assigning to it, and thus
making it global (which may or not be desired)
making your code incompatible with strict mode
Here's a solution:
var d = $('.post-scroller').outerHeight(),
postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight = d;
Note that this should only be done for readability/typing issues, not for downloaded script size: minifiers should be used for that latter goal.
Be also careful that you're not making an alias, but really two variables. If you assign to one, you won't change the other one. It's hard to give a definite advice without more information but the usual solution is to have namespaced object:
Assuming you have a struct
myApp.thumbnailScrollers.postCustom = {height:...
then you would just assign that latter object to a local variable in a module or function:
var s = myApp.thumbnailScrollers.postCustom
In this case, changing s.height would also change myApp.thumbnailScrollers.postCustom.height.
Probably you have different color because in this case b it's global variable.
As for my opinion will be better to write all definitions on different lines:
var postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight = $('.post-scroller').outerHeight();
var d = postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight;
Although JavaScript doesn't natively support references, you can stimulate them using code such as this:
function d(){
return postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight;
}
Then just use d() everywhere. It's not very elegant, but as far as I know it's the only way to get a reference in JavaScript.
Do you have a problem declaring that var in the next line?
You could just do:
var postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight = $('.post-scroller').outerHeight();
var d = postCustomThumbnailsScrollerHeight;
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 6 days ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to create a javascript structure that looks like that:
[{'red': {color:'red},...}]
starting with an array of colors:
const COLORS = ['red','yellow']
This is what I have tried:
const finalArray = COLORS.map(color => ({ [color]: { color } }))
However this produces an array that looks like that:
[{red: {color:'red'}}]
instead of [{'red': {color:'red'}}]
Which is not the same and will prevent the library I am using from understanding the array.
Any idea is welcome.
I edited the question since there where some typos. Hope it’s clearer now.
Thanks
What are the differences between:
[{red: {color:'red'}}]
// and
[{'red': {color:'red'}}]
If it's only a quote related matters, you can do like:
COLORS.map(color => ({ [`'${color}'`]: { color } }));
These are just two ways of representing the same array/object. If you need a string containing the canonical representation of the array/object (with double quotes around the names of the properties), you can use JSON.stringify(finalArray).
Please note this will quote ALL your property names, like in:
[{"red":{"color":"red"}}]
And please note the above is a string, as if you did:
finalString = '[{"red":{"color":"red"}}]'
(Note: this question has been closed, and I agree it's not clear enough. But it's quite evident that the user is confusing the internal structure of an array/object with its external representation, and with the way the array/object is shown by a development environment, browser, etc. As this is a very common problem, mostly in new programmers or newcomers to a tool, the question and the answers may still be helpful.)
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm coding a game with CraftyJS which uses JavaScript and I ran into problem where I have for loop and I need to use Variable name based on Array String... I have been trying to make it work for few hours now so I'm too tired to explain but please help me if anyone hear this!
So basicly what I'm trying to do is this:
var "TempVar"+Array[i] = Something;
also tried it whitout quotes etc... And by passing it in normal String and then using that but I didn't get it working either. If anyone know how this is supposed to do in JavaScript, or if there is alternative method please let me know that.
Sorry about my bad English, its terribly late and English is not my native language.
Also notice that I'm new to JavaScript so don't hate me too hard...
Basically youre going to need to do this:
//Create an empty object
var myObject = {};
for(var i=0; i<Array.length;i++)
{
//Add properties to the object
myObject["TempVar"+Array[i]] = Something;
}
Create an empty object and then append new properties to it within your loop. JavaScript has this neat little way properties are accessed. You can either use a dot notation like so:
myObject.property = "Blah";
Or you could access the property like an array:
myObject["property"] = "Blah";
Both perform the same operation.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question appears to be off-topic because it lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem. Describe your problem in more detail or include a minimal example in the question itself.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a way to access all the object instances starting with a common string.
Example: I have instances named button64, button223, button856471, button229846, etc. I have no control over how these instances are named. I want to push all these in an array.
I am not creating these objects, I just have to write a javascript which sits in this HTML page and collects all the object instances starting with the string 'button'.
The purpose is to reach out to a desired object out of these and change the visual element.
Also, the solution has to be compatible with IE8. Any ideas about how should I iterate?
If you can use jQuery, you could write:
var buttonsArray = [];
$("div").each(function() {
var id = $(this).attr("id");
if (id && id.indexOf("button") == 0) {
buttonsArray.push($(this));
}
});
You can use regular expressions to find any expression matching the pattern. Using the match method, every instance of the pattern is returned as an array.
var str = document.getElementById("sample");
var arr = string.match(/button[\d]*/g);
The regular expression on line two will match any result that has "button" and will stop once it encounters a character afterwards that is not a digit.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions concerning problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Writing a function in JavaScript. The plan is the function creates an object, which requires boolean statements as parameters. Something like this ->
var foo = new fuzz("pie < squirrel", "monkey === banana");
My question is - Is this evil?
*Note - * Inside the function 'fuzz' I will run checks on the values of the parameters. (Check string.length etc). I think this is how one is meant to use eval, it just has such a bad reputation on t'up web.
Thanks
Summing up the conclusions in the comments: write a simple rule evaluation engine! E.g.:
var variables = { ... };
function niceEval(condition) {
var operands = condition.match(/(\w+)\s+(\S+)\s+(\w+)/);
switch (operands[2]) {
case '<' :
return variables[operands[1]] < variables[operands[3]];
...
}
}
This also gives you a lot more control over possibly occurring errors than blindly evaling a string.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have lot enough functions, which look like:
var functionName = function(e) {
//
};
where all the parameters are getting passed in in a single container e. Most times values are simple values (no functions), ex.:
{ parameter1: 1, parameter2: "Name", parameter3:{ subParameter1: "A"}}
But there're times when I pass in functions as in: { p2:function(){...} }
I have two options when it comes to utilising parameter values:
Options 1: get parameter values from the chain, starting from e: e.parameter1, e.parameter3.subParameter1 etc.
Option 2: use cached parameter values:
var parameter1 = e.parameter1;
var subParameter1 = e.parameter3.subParameter1;
The second option improves readability but increases the number of vars and the size of the code base. On another hand it's much drier when using long chains, i.e. e.p1.p2.p3 etc.
What reasoning should I use for choosing between those two options?
**Update 1 - the question sounds quite subjective, let me re-prase it.**
I don't mind using chains all the way, no local vars codebase is smaller, I can always figure out what's what, are the any cases when caching is a must?
A combination, based on depth(e.p1 vs e.p1.sp2.ssp3) and frequency of use. Deeper sub-properties and high usage of any sub-property both benefit from caching.
Nested property look ups can get costly, and caching the value after executing the look up once is valuable if you're going to use it a lot. This is only more efficient if you're accessing a particular property on the chain more than once, and the more you access it, the more you benefit from caching.
If you only have one level deep(e.p1, e.p2, e.p3) and you're only looking up each property value once, don't bother.
If you're accessing e.p1.sp2.ssp3 all throughout your function, cache it for sure.