I currently have the following code:
function someFunctionThatRunsOnce(identifier){
if (var < 1){
runSomeOtherFunction(identifier);
var++;
}
}
The variable will not increment when var < 1 is true. It stays at 0 and does not increase. When I move the variable increment statement about runSomeOtherFunction(), it then works fine.
What I want to know is:
1) Why is this happening? Why is running the second function disabling the increment?
2) Is there a better way to do this? I need to run this function this way exactly once, under a set of very specific circumstances. The function that runs is used elsewhere using different parameters for (identifier).
Please keep things simple I am a super noob and do not know jQuery and only really simple use of JS.
a big issue is that "var" is not a valid variable name, it's a reserved keyword.
you can easily use your wrapper as a namespace to store the state of being called or not:
function someFunctionThatRunsOnce(identifier){
if (!someFunctionThatRunsOnce.spent){ //not run yet?
someFunctionThatRunsOnce.spent=true; //set as run
runSomeOtherFunction(identifier); //run real workload
}
}
this lets you avoid global variables and curtails the possibility of runSomeOtherFunction() accidentally changing the state of the spent tracker property.
Related
I'm working on a project that plays a game of rock paper scissors
the game works fine but i want to add something into it. a pointing system where it will add 1 each time a player win but i can't seem to make this work i've been trying to find workarounds for almost 2 day now but i can't seem to find any solution. The thing is the code works but after i log the function that adds 1 to a variable but after that it returns to it's original value which is 0.
const one = 1
function addone(test){
test += 1
}
addone(one)
console.log(one)
This print the original value like the function did not do anything to it. im so confused.
I see two problems in your code:
one is a const variable. That means that you can't modify its initial value.
test is a local variable inside your function, that means function won't modify the values of the variable that you pass as parameter (one).
There is an operator(++) that add a unit, I highly recommend you to use it instead of make a function:
var one = 1
one++;
console.log(one)
If you want to use a function you have to do like this:
var one = 1
function addone(test){
return test+1;
}
one = addone(one);
console.log(one)
In terms to store permanent data into a javascript variable, that's not possible. Variable are stored in RAM, that means that when you stop the program, al data of your program are wiped. Permanent store are made in database and other complex data structures.
If you want to play multiple games, you should consider to allow the players to play more games before the program finish.
thank you very much i never think that i could get more dumb so i cant manipulate it because it's just a copy of that variable that im inputing as parameter? so it means that the function did not touch the variable at all. I wish i could go back to my mother's womb.
and the const it's just a typo very sorry for this.
i did not know this website is very active i thought i would wait days just to get a response thank you very much and have a nice day
I'll start with the exact nature of the problem and then give some background. I am trying to name a function -threadTimer- and give it a random unique identifier, such as 'threadTimer'+ID. A randomly generated ID would work fine. Then, I need to use setInterval on it, to make it fire repeatedly and therein lies my coding problem. I have tried every variation of new, function, function as an object and I just can't get my head around it. You'll notice that the function I have created is an object and perhaps this is where I'm going in circles.
OK, the background I mentioned. threadTimer is fired by a master timer co-ordinating several threads. That's why you'll see I have generated a 'global' object for reference elsewhere. similar HTML entities can fire threadTimer at the same time, hence my requirement to make each instance unique.
window['GlblThreadExe'+ID]=setInterval(function(){threadTimer(elid,parent,lft,top,diameter,point,bStyle,color,grp,startTime,size,ID,counter,div,divwth,divht,wthIncrement,htIncrement,lftStart,topStart,lftIncrement,topIncrement)},interval);
function threadTimer(elid,parent,lft,top,diameter,point,bStyle,color,grp,startTime,size,ID,counter,div,divwth,divht,wthIncrement,htIncrement,lftStart,topStart,lftIncrement,topIncrement){
// more code
}
In truth, I think its the volume of parameters that I'm passing that's confusing my syntax. Any help appreciated
Avoid polluting window
Generally instead of polluting the global namespace you can store your setInterval ids in some variable
let intervalIds = {}
intervalIds['GlblThreadExe'+ID] = setInterval(function()...)
If really necessary, then store intervalIds to window
window.intervalIds = intervalIds;
Wrap your anonymous function
When you create the "clock", do not call setInterval directly:
Here, createTimerWithId will return a function which calls threadTimer
Dirty id generation
Use a timestamp, and mix it with some random stuff. Or better use a UUID
setInterval(createTimerWithId(), 1000)
function createTimerWithId(){
let id = Date.now()+Math.random(); //no lib, oneliner. good enough to debug
return function(){//the same function you gave to setInterval in your example
threadTimer(id, ...)
}
}
We can do better
In 1. we generated an id on the fly and thus
your code is not testable (id will always change(well except if you mock Math and Date...)).
your id is ugly (a float...)
it will be hard to know from which setInterval you come from
instead, give it the ID.
function createTimerWithId(ID){
return function(){//the same function you gave to setInterval in your example
threadTimer(ID, ...)
}
}
window['..'+ID] = setInterval(createTimerWithId(ID));
shorter version being
window['..'+ID] = setInterval((id=>{
return function(){
threadTimer(id, ...)
}
})(ID),1000);
I am currently learning JavaScript and I am wondering what is the role of the variables (var).
In the example bellow, on the last two lines we first define a variable "monCompte" in which we call "john.demandeCaissier(1234)". Then we use console.log(monCompte) to print the result on the screen. What I don't understand is why do we first need to define the variable "monCompte" to call "john.demandeCaissier(1234)". Why can't we just do something such as:
console.log(john.demandeCaissier(1234));
Example
function Personne(prenom,nom,age) {
this.prenom = prenom;
this.nom = nom;
this.age = age;
var compteEnBanque = 7500;
this.demandeCaissier = function(mdp) {
if (mdp == 1234) {
return compteEnBanque;
}
else {
return "Mot de passe faux.";
}
};
}
var john = new Personne('John','Smith',30);
var monCompte = john.demandeCaissier(1234);
console.log(monCompte);
Thank you for you answers.
Yes, you can inline your function call and avoid the need for a variable. However, if an error occurs on that line, it becomes harder to debug:
var monCompte = john.demandeCaissier(1234);
console.log(monCompte);
vs
console.log(john.demandeCaissier(1234));
in the second example, there are several different modes of failure that would not be apparent in a debugging session. When split over two lines, some of those failures become easier to track down.
Second, if you wanted to reuse the value returned by john.demandeCaissier(1234) (the author might have shown this), then a variable becomes very useful indeed.
In my opinion, it's a worthy pursuit to perform only a single operation per line. Fluent-style advocates might disagree here, but it really does make debugging considerably easier.
You could definitely do that, but in more complex programs you will need to store variables for several reasons:
Shortening Long Expressions
Imagine if you saw this code somewhere:
console.log((parseInt(parseFloat(lev_c + end_lev_c)) - parseInt(parseFloat(lev_c + start_lev_c)) + 1));
BTW I got that from here
Wouldn't it be so much simpler just to split that expression up into different variables?
Storing Data
Let's say that you take some input from the user. How would you refer to it later? You cannot use a literal value because you don't know what the user entered, so do you just call the input function again? No, because then it would take the input a second time. What you do is you store the input from the user in a variable and refer to it later on in the code. That way, you can retrieve the value at any time in the program.
If you are a beginner, you might not see any use for variables, but when you start writing larger programs you will start to use variables literally in almost every line of code.
Variables exist to store data. They're useful because instead of invoking an operation over and over again, which is criminally inefficient, they allow you to invoke an operation once, and then use that result where necessary.
And that's for all languages, not just JavaScript.
Variables are structures that store some value (or values). They're only that and you could probably do all your code (or the majority of it) without them.
They help you organize and add some readability to your code. Example:
alert(sumNumbers(askNumber()+askNumber()));
takes a lot more effort to read/understand then this:
var firstNumber = askNumber();
var secondNumber = askNumber();
var total = sumNumbers(firstNumber + secondNumber);
alert(total);
Sure it's longer but it's more readable. Of course you don't have to use var for everything, in this case I could just hide the total.
Another common use for variables is "caching" a value.
If you had a function that sums like 1 million values, if you keep calling it for everything, your code would always have to do all that hard work.
On the other hand, if you store it on a variable the first time you call it, every other time you need that value again, you could just use the variable, since its a "copy" of that calculation and the result is already there.
I've just finished writing a script for parsing csv data. Having recently installed JShint, it's been badgering me about the re-use of variables. I've been using JS a fair bit lately, but I come from a python background where it's normal to reuse variables. I'm wondering what issues there are with reusing variables in the following two examples:
Loop with a Switch
The following loop steps through the rows on a csv file, and when it passes a certain value in a row, it switches variable "currentSwitch" from false to true. After currentSwitch is tripped, the loop starts to push stuff to an array.
for (f=0; f < data.length; f++){
if (data[f][0] === code){
if (currentSwitch === true){
dataListByCode.push(data[f]);
}
}
else if ((data[f][0]).slice(0,4) === "UNIN"){
var currentSwitch = true;
}
}
Processing Data with Broken Out Functions
I've got a few functions for processing data that it makes sense to keep separate. In the following code, I process with one function, then I process with another.
var dataListByCode = addDivideData(dataListByCode);
var dataListByCode = addBeforeEntriesArray(dataListByCode, invNumber, matterNumber, client, workType);
Can anyone tell me if this is not in line with best practice? Is there anything that could go wrong with either of these (or scenarios like them)?
You don't need to redeclare currentSwtich
var currentSwitch = true;
In fact it really doesn't make any sense to redeclare this variable in the middle of the loop and in most cases it's almost certainly not what you actually want.
Just initialize/declare it once at the beginning of your loop
var currentSwtich;
// or
var currentSwitch = false;
and drop the var when you set it to true:
currentSwitch = true;
Basically what you are doing is creating a brand new variable with the same name as the old one, and throwing away the old one. This isn't really what you want normally.
There is no analogous concept in python because python doesn't require you to declare variables.
The major problem with reusing variables is that:
a.) in bigger code blocks it can get very confusing, especially if you added/removed code ~20 times, and kept reusing same ~5 variables for multiple things
b.) any programmer that knows nothing about code(read: you after couple months/years) will have a much more difficult time grasping the code.
The lower function snippet can be expressed as:
var dataListByCode = addBeforeEntriesArray(addDivideData(dataListByCode), invNumber, matterNumber, client, workType);
which is not that problematic. The breaking up of functions is useless in this case, and if you have many inline function chains that is usually sign that you need to rethink the object/function design.
Yes, I am having issues with this very basic (or so it seems) thing. I am pretty new to JS and still trying to get my head around it, but I am pretty familiar with PHP and have never experienced anything like this. I just can not empty this damn array, and stuff keeps getting added to the end every time i run this.
I have no idea why, and i am starting to think that it is somehow related to the way chekbox id's are named, but i may be mistaking....
id="alias[1321-213]",
id="alias[1128-397]",
id="alias[77-5467]" and so on.
I have tried sticking
checkboxes = []; and
checkboxes.length = 0;
In every place possible. Right after the beginning of the function, at the end of the function, even outside, right before the function, but it does not help, and the only way to empty this array is to reload the page. Please tell me what I am doing wrong, or at least point me to a place where i can RTFM. I am completely out of ideas here.
function() {
var checkboxes = new Array();
checkboxes = $(':input[name="checkbox"]');
$.each(checkboxes,
function(key, value) {
console.log(value.id);
alert(value.id);
}
);
checkboxes.length = 0;
}
I have also read Mastering Javascript Arrays 3 times to make sure I am not doing something wrong, but still can't figure it out....
I think there's a lot of confusion coming out of this because you are clearing the array -- just maybe not for the purpose you want, or at the wrong time, etc.
function () {
var checkboxes = new Array(); // local-scope variable
checkboxes = $(':input[name="checkbox"]'); // new instance
$.each(checkboxes, /* ... */); // (truncated for brevity)
checkboxes.length = 0; // this clears the array
// but, for what...?
// nothing happens now
}
As per your snippet, every call to the function recreates and clears the array. However, all work with the array is done while the array is full (nothing happens after it's cleared).
Also, checkboxes is a private variable to the function. The variable only exists during execution of the function and is forgotten once the function is done.
So, what is the big picture? Why are you trying to clear the array?
To take a guess, it sounds like you're intending on clearing it for the next call of the function.
i.e. (filling in doSomething for function name):
doSomething(); // log all array elements and clears the array
doSomething(); // does nothing, since the array is already empty
To accomplish this, you need to define checkboxes in a single location outside of the function, either as a global variable or using closures (the heavily more recommended, albeit more complex, option):
NOTE: If you haven't dealt with closures before, they may not make much sense after only a single example. But, there are thousands of resources available, including Stack Overflow, to help explain them better than I can here.
// closure (or instantly-called function)
// allows for defining private variables, since they are only known by
// code blocks within this function
(function () {
// private (closure-scoped) variable(s)
var checkboxes = $(':input[name="checkbox"]');
function doSomething() {
$.each(checkboxes, /* ... */);
checkboxes.length = 0;
}
})();
The closure will run once, defining checkboxes as the array of inputs while doSomething will iterate the array before clearing it.
Now, the last step is to expose doSomething -- cause, as with checkboxes, it is also private. You can accomplish exposing it by passing the function reference from the closure to a variable outside the closure:
var doSomething = (function () {
/* ... */
return doSomething; // note that you DO NOT want parenthesis here
})();
Is setting length even possible? ;)
Any way checkboxes is a jquery object not an array.
When You do checkboxes = $(':input[name="checkbox"]'); it's not an array any more and whatever there was before has no influence. It doesn't matter what was in a variable if You assign something new to it in any language I know.
You are making some jquery related error. Please elaborate more so that I can help
Are You sure You put name="checkbox" in all of them? It doesn't seem to have a lot of sense. Maybe You waned $(':input[type="checkbox"]'); ?
Edit: that's funny. the above selector isn't too good as well. It should be:
$('input:checkbox');
as for removing stuff:
delete varname
delete arrname[elem]
is the right way to do it.
assigning null does not change the length but just makes trouble.
What about doing this:
checkboxes = new Array();
You can also delete it.
delete checkboxes;
When you rerun the function it will search for all checkboxes again.
Consider this strategy:
function() {
var checkboxes = $(':input[name=checkbox]:not(.examined)');
checkboxes.addClass('examined');
$.each(checkboxes, function(key, value) {
// ... stuff
});
}
You could also use .data() if you don't want to "pollute" the DOM.