What is the equivalent of Array.any? in JavaScript? - javascript

I'm looking for a method for JavaScript that returns true or false when it's empty... something like Ruby any? or empty?
[].any? #=> false
[].empty? #=> true


The JavaScript native .some() method does exactly what you're looking for:
function isBiggerThan10(element, index, array) {
return element > 10;
}
[2, 5, 8, 1, 4].some(isBiggerThan10); // false
[12, 5, 8, 1, 4].some(isBiggerThan10); // true


JavaScript has the Array.prototype.some() method:
[1, 2, 3].some((num) => num % 2 === 0);
returns true because there's (at least) one even number in the array.
In general, the Array class in JavaScript's standard library is quite poor compared to Ruby's Enumerable. There's no isEmpty method and .some() requires that you pass in a function or you'll get an undefined is not a function error. You can define your own .isEmpty() as well as a .any() that is closer to Ruby's like this:
Array.prototype.isEmpty = function() {
return this.length === 0;
}
Array.prototype.any = function(func) {
return this.some(func || function(x) { return x });
}
Libraries like underscore.js and lodash provide helper methods like these, if you're used to Ruby's collection methods, it might make sense to include them in your project.


I'm a little late to the party, but...
[].some(x => !!x)


var a = [];
a.length > 0
I would just check the length. You could potentially wrap it in a helper method if you like.


I believe this to be the cleanest and readable option:
var empty = [];
empty.some(x => x); //returns false


JavaScript arrays can be "empty", in a sense, even if the length of the array is non-zero. For example:
var empty = new Array(10);
var howMany = empty.reduce(function(count, e) { return count + 1; }, 0);
The variable "howMany" will be set to 0, even though the array was initialized to have a length of 10.
Thus because many of the Array iteration functions only pay attention to elements of the array that have actually been assigned values, you can use something like this call to .some() to see if an array has anything actually in it:
var hasSome = empty.some(function(e) { return true; });
The callback passed to .some() will return true whenever it's called, so if the iteration mechanism finds an element of the array that's worthy of inspection, the result will be true.


Just use Array.length:
var arr = [];
if (arr.length)
console.log('not empty');
else
console.log('empty');
See MDN


If you really want to got nuts, add a new method to the prototype:
if (!('empty' in Array.prototype)) {
Array.prototype.empty = function () {
return this.length === 0;
};
}
[1, 2].empty() // false
[].empty() // true
DEMO


What you want is .empty not .empty() to fully mimics Ruby :
Object.defineProperty( Array.prototype, 'empty', {
get: function ( ) { return this.length===0 }
} );
then
[].empty //true
[3,2,8].empty //false
For any , see my answer here


Array has a length property :
[].length // 0
[0].length // 1
[4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42].length // 6


polyfill* :
Array.prototype.any=function(){
return (this.some)?this.some(...arguments):this.filter(...arguments).reduce((a,b)=> a || b)
};
If you want to call it as Ruby , that it means .any not .any(), use :
Object.defineProperty( Array.prototype, 'any', {
get: function ( ) { return (this.some)?this.some(function(e){return e}):this.filter(function(e){return e}).reduce((a,b)=> a || b) }
} );
__
`* : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfill

Related

Difficulty with Boolean and arrays in Javascript

Here, I am trying to write a code that takes a list of integers as a parameter and searches for the value 7. The function will return a boolean value representing true if 7 is in the list and false if it is not. This is what I have tried so far:
Could it be something with my else statement? Do I end it too soon? Or not soon enough?

You can simply use an array and use includes as per ECMA2016 like below:
if([2,5,7].includes(value)) {
return true;
}
return false;
or with list
var flag = false;
for(var i=0; i<arguments.length; i++)
{ if(arguments[i] == this) { flag = true; break; }}
return flag;

Javascript already has a function to do this. Array.prototype.includes(). You use it like this:
const containsSeven = list.includes(7)
If you are looking for something more complicated, like whether an item is an object and contains a particular key value pair for example, you can use Array.prototype.some()

Your declaration of the if statement is wrong. The else tag is on the wrong line. If you use else, it should come after the if-block.
But moving the else-block up, won't fix your function, because it will only return true if the first element in your array is a 7.
There are many good ways to do it, such as using higher order functions, but as it seems you are new to the language.
EDIT: Therefore, I would suggest one of the two simple ways below:
1) You could store the number of 7s found in the array in a for loop. Afterwards return false if the number of 7s is 0 or true if it the number is higher than 0
2) Another, much quicker way would be to return true in the for-loop when you encounter a 7 and after the for-loop just return false. Because a return statement exits the scope - which is your function - not only the for-loop would come to an end but also your function would return true much earlier.
For the second option, your function would look like this:
function find_value(list) {
for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
if(list[i] == 7) {
return true
}
}
return false
}

You can coerces to boolean the result of Array.prototype.find() which returns the value of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function. Otherwise undefined is returned.
Code:
const list1 = [4, 5, 6, 7, 8];
const list2 = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
const findTheNumber = (arr, num) => !!arr.find(n => n === num);
console.log(findTheNumber(list1, 7));
console.log(findTheNumber(list2, 7));

Try this way
function search(list , value){ // Value = 7;
return true ? list.indexOf(value) > -1 : false
}

Returning null or nothing instead of empty array with array.filter

Is there a vanilla js way of returning null (or nothing) instead of an empty array[]
from Array.prototype.filter when no elements are found?
Some context:
let arr = [1,2,3,1,1]
let itemsFound = arr.filter(e=> e===6)
if(itemsFound){ // always true, []===true
// do something
}
The if will always evaluate to true as filter returns an empty array[].
And an empty array is 'true' in javascript. Of course I can do,
if(itemsFound.length > 0){
// do something
}
But I think just, if(itemsFound){} is neater.
The answer would not require additional js libraries.
Additional context
Coming from an OO background, I found it quite funky that objects and functions
could be treated like Boolean. But felt it was intuitive after getting used to it.
There are times that I would forget that Array.filter returns an empty array [] when no elements are found. And [] === true. This causes unnecessary bugs.
As with the answers and feedback received of now, I don't think this question can be answered except with a new implementation of Array.filter.
With that said, the accepted answer is the closest to what I have in mind.

you can do something like this, if you just want to check if it exists or not
let arr = [1,2,3,1,1]
let itemsFound = arr.filter(e=> e===6).length
console.log(itemsFound);
if(itemsFound){ // always true
// do something
}
or something like this
let arr = [1,2,3,1,1]
let itemsFound = arr.filter(e=> e===6)
itemsFound = (itemsFound.length > 0 ? itemsFound : false);
console.log(itemsFound)
if(itemsFound){ // always true
// do something
}
Or something like this
Array.prototype.isEmpty = function(){
return this.length == 0;
}
let arr = [1,2,3,1,1];
arr.isEmpty();
let itemsFound = arr.filter(e=> e===6)
if(itemsFound.isEmpty()){ // always true
// do something
console.log('OK');
}

You could use the length property of an array and take the value as truthy/falsy value for the condition.
function getValues(array) {
const result = array.filter(e => e === 6);
return result.length ? result : null;
}
console.log(getValues([1, 2, 3, 1, 1]));

My == isn't working [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to compare arrays in JavaScript?
(55 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
var a = [1, 2, 3];
var b = [3, 2, 1];
var c = new Array(1, 2, 3);
alert(a == b + "|" + b == c);
demo
How can I check these array for equality and get a method which returns true if they are equal?
Does jQuery offer any method for this?

This is what you should do. Please do not use stringify nor < >.
function arraysEqual(a, b) {
if (a === b) return true;
if (a == null || b == null) return false;
if (a.length !== b.length) return false;
// If you don't care about the order of the elements inside
// the array, you should sort both arrays here.
// Please note that calling sort on an array will modify that array.
// you might want to clone your array first.
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
if (a[i] !== b[i]) return false;
}
return true;
}

[2021 changelog: bugfix for option4: no total ordering on js objects (even excluding NaN!=NaN and '5'==5 ('5'===5, '2'<3, etc.)), so cannot use .sort(cmpFunc) on Map.keys() (though you can on Object.keys(obj), since even 'numerical' keys are strings).]
Option 1
Easiest option, works in almost all cases, except that null!==undefined but they both are converted to JSON representation null and considered equal:
function arraysEqual(a1,a2) {
/* WARNING: arrays must not contain {objects} or behavior may be undefined */
return JSON.stringify(a1)==JSON.stringify(a2);
}
(This might not work if your array contains objects. Whether this still works with objects depends on whether the JSON implementation sorts keys. For example, the JSON of {1:2,3:4} may or may not be equal to {3:4,1:2}; this depends on the implementation, and the spec makes no guarantee whatsoever. [2017 update: Actually the ES6 specification now guarantees object keys will be iterated in order of 1) integer properties, 2) properties in the order they were defined, then 3) symbol properties in the order they were defined. Thus IF the JSON.stringify implementation follows this, equal objects (in the === sense but NOT NECESSARILY in the == sense) will stringify to equal values. More research needed. So I guess you could make an evil clone of an object with properties in the reverse order, but I cannot imagine it ever happening by accident...] At least on Chrome, the JSON.stringify function tends to return keys in the order they were defined (at least that I've noticed), but this behavior is very much subject to change at any point and should not be relied upon. If you choose not to use objects in your lists, this should work fine. If you do have objects in your list that all have a unique id, you can do a1.map(function(x)}{return {id:x.uniqueId}}). If you have arbitrary objects in your list, you can read on for option #2.)
This works for nested arrays as well.
It is, however, slightly inefficient because of the overhead of creating these strings and garbage-collecting them.
Option 2
Historical, version 1 solution:
// generally useful functions
function type(x) { // does not work in general, but works on JSONable objects we care about... modify as you see fit
// e.g. type(/asdf/g) --> "[object RegExp]"
return Object.prototype.toString.call(x);
}
function zip(arrays) {
// e.g. zip([[1,2,3],[4,5,6]]) --> [[1,4],[2,5],[3,6]]
return arrays[0].map(function(_,i){
return arrays.map(function(array){return array[i]})
});
}
// helper functions
function allCompareEqual(array) {
// e.g. allCompareEqual([2,2,2,2]) --> true
// does not work with nested arrays or objects
return array.every(function(x){return x==array[0]});
}
function isArray(x){ return type(x)==type([]) }
function getLength(x){ return x.length }
function allTrue(array){ return array.reduce(function(a,b){return a&&b},true) }
// e.g. allTrue([true,true,true,true]) --> true
// or just array.every(function(x){return x});
function allDeepEqual(things) {
// works with nested arrays
if( things.every(isArray) )
return allCompareEqual(things.map(getLength)) // all arrays of same length
&& allTrue(zip(things).map(allDeepEqual)); // elements recursively equal
//else if( this.every(isObject) )
// return {all have exactly same keys, and for
// each key k, allDeepEqual([o1[k],o2[k],...])}
// e.g. ... && allTrue(objectZip(objects).map(allDeepEqual))
//else if( ... )
// extend some more
else
return allCompareEqual(things);
}
// Demo:
allDeepEqual([ [], [], [] ])
true
allDeepEqual([ [1], [1], [1] ])
true
allDeepEqual([ [1,2], [1,2] ])
true
allDeepEqual([ [[1,2],[3]], [[1,2],[3]] ])
true
allDeepEqual([ [1,2,3], [1,2,3,4] ])
false
allDeepEqual([ [[1,2],[3]], [[1,2],[],3] ])
false
allDeepEqual([ [[1,2],[3]], [[1],[2,3]] ])
false
allDeepEqual([ [[1,2],3], [1,[2,3]] ])
false
<!--
More "proper" option, which you can override to deal with special cases (like regular objects and null/undefined and custom objects, if you so desire):
To use this like a regular function, do:
function allDeepEqual2() {
return allDeepEqual([].slice.call(arguments));
}
Demo:
allDeepEqual2([[1,2],3], [[1,2],3])
true
-->
Option 3
function arraysEqual(a,b) {
/*
Array-aware equality checker:
Returns whether arguments a and b are == to each other;
however if they are equal-lengthed arrays, returns whether their
elements are pairwise == to each other recursively under this
definition.
*/
if (a instanceof Array && b instanceof Array) {
if (a.length!=b.length) // assert same length
return false;
for(var i=0; i<a.length; i++) // assert each element equal
if (!arraysEqual(a[i],b[i]))
return false;
return true;
} else {
return a==b; // if not both arrays, should be the same
}
}
//Examples:
arraysEqual([[1,2],3], [[1,2],3])
true
arraysEqual([1,2,3], [1,2,3,4])
false
arraysEqual([[1,2],[3]], [[1,2],[],3])
false
arraysEqual([[1,2],[3]], [[1],[2,3]])
false
arraysEqual([[1,2],3], undefined)
false
arraysEqual(undefined, undefined)
true
arraysEqual(1, 2)
false
arraysEqual(null, null)
true
arraysEqual(1, 1)
true
arraysEqual([], 1)
false
arraysEqual([], undefined)
false
arraysEqual([], [])
true
/*
If you wanted to apply this to JSON-like data structures with js Objects, you could do so. Fortunately we're guaranteed that all objects keys are unique, so iterate over the objects OwnProperties and sort them by key, then assert that both the sorted key-array is equal and the value-array are equal, and just recurse. We CANNOT extend the sort-then-compare method with Maps as well; even though Map keys are unique, there is no total ordering in ecmascript, so you can't sort them... but you CAN query them individually (see the next section Option 4). (Also if we extend this to Sets, we run into the tree isomorphism problem http://logic.pdmi.ras.ru/~smal/files/smal_jass08_slides.pdf - fortunately it's not as hard as general graph isomorphism; there is in fact an O(#vertices) algorithm to solve it, but it can get very complicated to do it efficiently. The pathological case is if you have a set made up of lots of seemingly-indistinguishable objects, but upon further inspection some of those objects may differ as you delve deeper into them. You can also work around this by using hashing to reject almost all cases.)
*/
<!--
**edit**: It's 2016 and my previous overcomplicated answer was bugging me. This recursive, imperative "recursive programming 101" implementation keeps the code really simple, and furthermore fails at the earliest possible point (giving us efficiency). It also doesn't generate superfluous ephemeral datastructures (not that there's anything wrong with functional programming in general, but just keeping it clean here).
If we wanted to apply this to a non-empty arrays of arrays, we could do seriesOfArrays.reduce(arraysEqual).
This is its own function, as opposed to using Object.defineProperties to attach to Array.prototype, since that would fail with a key error if we passed in an undefined value (that is however a fine design decision if you want to do so).
This only answers OPs original question.
-->
Option 4:
(continuation of 2016 edit)
This should work with most objects:
const STRICT_EQUALITY_BROKEN = (a,b)=> a===b;
const STRICT_EQUALITY_NO_NAN = (a,b)=> {
if (typeof a=='number' && typeof b=='number' && ''+a=='NaN' && ''+b=='NaN')
// isNaN does not do what you think; see +/-Infinity
return true;
else
return a===b;
};
function deepEquals(a,b, areEqual=STRICT_EQUALITY_NO_NAN, setElementsAreEqual=STRICT_EQUALITY_NO_NAN) {
/* compares objects hierarchically using the provided
notion of equality (defaulting to ===);
supports Arrays, Objects, Maps, ArrayBuffers */
if (a instanceof Array && b instanceof Array)
return arraysEqual(a,b, areEqual);
if (Object.getPrototypeOf(a)===Object.prototype && Object.getPrototypeOf(b)===Object.prototype)
return objectsEqual(a,b, areEqual);
if (a instanceof Map && b instanceof Map)
return mapsEqual(a,b, areEqual);
if (a instanceof Set && b instanceof Set) {
if (setElementsAreEqual===STRICT_EQUALITY_NO_NAN)
return setsEqual(a,b);
else
throw "Error: set equality by hashing not implemented because cannot guarantee custom notion of equality is transitive without programmer intervention."
}
if ((a instanceof ArrayBuffer || ArrayBuffer.isView(a)) && (b instanceof ArrayBuffer || ArrayBuffer.isView(b)))
return typedArraysEqual(a,b);
return areEqual(a,b); // see note[1] -- IMPORTANT
}
function arraysEqual(a,b, areEqual) {
if (a.length!=b.length)
return false;
for(var i=0; i<a.length; i++)
if (!deepEquals(a[i],b[i], areEqual))
return false;
return true;
}
function objectsEqual(a,b, areEqual) {
var aKeys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(a);
var bKeys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(b);
if (aKeys.length!=bKeys.length)
return false;
aKeys.sort();
bKeys.sort();
for(var i=0; i<aKeys.length; i++)
if (!areEqual(aKeys[i],bKeys[i])) // keys must be strings
return false;
return deepEquals(aKeys.map(k=>a[k]), aKeys.map(k=>b[k]), areEqual);
}
function mapsEqual(a,b, areEqual) { // assumes Map's keys use the '===' notion of equality, which is also the assumption of .has and .get methods in the spec; however, Map's values use our notion of the areEqual parameter
if (a.size!=b.size)
return false;
return [...a.keys()].every(k=>
b.has(k) && deepEquals(a.get(k), b.get(k), areEqual)
);
}
function setsEqual(a,b) {
// see discussion in below rest of StackOverflow answer
return a.size==b.size && [...a.keys()].every(k=>
b.has(k)
);
}
function typedArraysEqual(a,b) {
// we use the obvious notion of equality for binary data
a = new Uint8Array(a);
b = new Uint8Array(b);
if (a.length != b.length)
return false;
for(var i=0; i<a.length; i++)
if (a[i]!=b[i])
return false;
return true;
}
Demo (not extensively tested):
var nineTen = new Float32Array(2);
nineTen[0]=9; nineTen[1]=10;
> deepEquals(
[[1,[2,3]], 4, {a:5,'111':6}, new Map([['c',7],['d',8]]), nineTen],
[[1,[2,3]], 4, {111:6,a:5}, new Map([['d',8],['c',7]]), nineTen]
)
true
> deepEquals(
[[1,[2,3]], 4, {a:'5','111':6}, new Map([['c',7],['d',8]]), nineTen],
[[1,[2,3]], 4, {111:6,a:5}, new Map([['d',8],['c',7]]), nineTen],
(a,b)=>a==b
)
true
Note that if one is using the == notion of equality, then know that falsey values and coercion means that == equality is NOT TRANSITIVE. For example ''==0 and 0=='0' but ''!='0'. This is relevant for Sets: I do not think one can override the notion of Set equality in a meaningful way. If one is using the built-in notion of Set equality (that is, ===), then the above should work. However if one uses a non-transitive notion of equality like ==, you open a can of worms: Even if you forced the user to define a hash function on the domain (hash(a)!=hash(b) implies a!=b) I'm not sure that would help... Certainly one could do the O(N^2) performance thing and remove pairs of == items one by one like a bubble sort, and then do a second O(N^2) pass to confirm things in equivalence classes are actually == to each other, and also != to everything not thus paired, but you'd STILL have to throw a runtime error if you have some coercion going on... You'd also maybe get weird (but potentially not that weird) edge cases with https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Falsy and Truthy values (with the exception that NaN==NaN... but just for Sets!). This is not an issue usually with most Sets of homogenous datatype.
To summarize the complexity of recursive equality on Sets:
Set equality is the tree isomorphism problem http://logic.pdmi.ras.ru/~smal/files/smal_jass08_slides.pdf but a bit simpler
set A =? set B being synonymous with B.has(k) for every k in A implicitly uses ===-equality ([1,2,3]!==[1,2,3]), not recursive equality (deepEquals([1,2,3],[1,2,3]) == true), so two new Set([[1,2,3]]) would not be equal because we don't recurse
trying to get recursive equality to work is kind of meaningless if the recursive notion of equality you use is not 1) reflexive (a=b implies b=a) and 2) symmetric (a=a) and 3) transitive (a=b and b=c implies a=c); this is the definition of an equivalence class
the equality == operator obviously does not obey many of these properties
even the strict equality === operator in ecmascript
does not obey these properties, because the strict equality comparison algorithm of ecmascript has NaN!=NaN; this is why many native datatypes like Set and Map 'equate' NaNs to consider them the same values when they appear as keys
As long as we force and ensure recursive set equality is indeed transitive and reflexive and symmetric, we can make sure nothing horribly wrong happens.
Then, we can do O(N^2) comparisons by recursively comparing everything randomly, which is incredibly inefficient. There is no magical algorithm that lets us do setKeys.sort((a,b)=> /*some comparison function*/) because there is no total ordering in ecmascript (''==0 and 0=='0', but ''!='0'... though I believe you might be able to define one yourself which would certainly be a lofty goal).
We can however .toStringify or JSON.stringify all elements to assist us. We will then sort them, which gives us equivalence classes (two same things won't not have the same string JSON representation) of potentially-false-positives (two different things may have the same string or JSON representation).
However, this introduces its own performance issues because serializing the same thing, then serializing subsets of that thing, over and over, is incredibly inefficient. Imagine a tree of nested Sets; every node would belong to O(depth) different serializations!
Even if that was not an issue, the worst-case performance would still be O(N!) if all the serializations 'hints' were the same
Thus, the above implementation declares that Sets are equal if the items are just plain === (not recursively ===). This will mean that it will return false for new Set([1,2,3]) and new Set([1,2,3]). With a bit of effort, you may rewrite that part of the code if you know what you're doing.
(sidenote: Maps are es6 dictionaries. I can't tell if they have O(1) or O(log(N)) lookup performance, but in any case they are 'ordered' in the sense that they keep track of the order in which key-value pairs were inserted into them. However, the semantic of whether two Maps should be equal if elements were inserted in a different order into them is ambiguous. I give a sample implementation below of a deepEquals that considers two maps equal even if elements were inserted into them in a different order.)
(note [1]: IMPORTANT: NOTION OF EQUALITY: You may want to override the noted line with a custom notion of equality, which you'll also have to change in the other functions anywhere it appears. For example, do you or don't you want NaN==NaN? By default this is not the case. There are even more weird things like 0=='0'. Do you consider two objects to be the same if and only if they are the same object in memory? See https://stackoverflow.com/a/5447170/711085 . You should document the notion of equality you use.) Also note that other answers which naively use .toString and .sort may sometimes fall pray to the fact that 0!=-0 but are considered equal and canonicalizable to 0 for almost all datatypes and JSON serialization; whether -0==0 should also be documented in your notion of equality, as well as most other things in that table like NaN, etc.
You should be able to extend the above to WeakMaps, WeakSets. Not sure if it makes sense to extend to DataViews. Should also be able to extend to RegExps probably, etc.
As you extend it, you realize you do lots of unnecessary comparisons. This is where the type function that I defined way earlier (solution #2) can come in handy; then you can dispatch instantly. Whether that is worth the overhead of (possibly? not sure how it works under the hood) string representing the type is up to you. You can just then rewrite the dispatcher, i.e. the function deepEquals, to be something like:
var dispatchTypeEquals = {
number: function(a,b) {...a==b...},
array: function(a,b) {...deepEquals(x,y)...},
...
}
function deepEquals(a,b) {
var typeA = extractType(a);
var typeB = extractType(a);
return typeA==typeB && dispatchTypeEquals[typeA](a,b);
}

jQuery does not have a method for comparing arrays. However the Underscore library (or the comparable Lodash library) does have such a method: isEqual, and it can handle a variety of other cases (like object literals) as well. To stick to the provided example:
var a=[1,2,3];
var b=[3,2,1];
var c=new Array(1,2,3);
alert(_.isEqual(a, b) + "|" + _.isEqual(b, c));
By the way: Underscore has lots of other methods that jQuery is missing as well, so it's a great complement to jQuery.
EDIT: As has been pointed out in the comments, the above now only works if both arrays have their elements in the same order, ie.:
_.isEqual([1,2,3], [1,2,3]); // true
_.isEqual([1,2,3], [3,2,1]); // false
Fortunately Javascript has a built in method for for solving this exact problem, sort:
_.isEqual([1,2,3].sort(), [3,2,1].sort()); // true

For primitive values like numbers and strings this is an easy solution:
a = [1,2,3]
b = [3,2,1]
a.sort().toString() == b.sort().toString()
The call to sort() will ensure that the order of the elements does not matter. The toString() call will create a string with the values comma separated so both strings can be tested for equality.

With JavaScript version 1.6 it's as easy as this:
Array.prototype.equals = function( array ) {
return this.length == array.length &&
this.every( function(this_i,i) { return this_i == array[i] } )
}
For example, [].equals([]) gives true, while [1,2,3].equals( [1,3,2] ) yields false.

Even if this would seem super simple, sometimes it's really useful. If all you need is to see if two arrays have the same items and they are in the same order, try this:
[1, 2, 3].toString() == [1, 2, 3].toString()
true
[1, 2, 3,].toString() == [1, 2, 3].toString()
true
[1,2,3].toString() == [1, 2, 3].toString()
true
However, this doesn't work for mode advanced cases such as:
[[1,2],[3]].toString() == [[1],[2,3]].toString()
true
It depends what you need.

Based on Tim James answer and Fox32's comment, the following should check for nulls, with the assumption that two nulls are not equal.
function arrays_equal(a,b) { return !!a && !!b && !(a<b || b<a); }
> arrays_equal([1,2,3], [1,3,4])
false
> arrays_equal([1,2,3], [1,2,3])
true
> arrays_equal([1,3,4], [1,2,3])
false
> arrays_equal(null, [1,2,3])
false
> arrays_equal(null, null)
false

jQuery has such method for deep recursive comparison.
A homegrown general purpose strict equality check could look as follows:
function deepEquals(obj1, obj2, parents1, parents2) {
"use strict";
var i;
// compare null and undefined
if (obj1 === undefined || obj2 === undefined ||
obj1 === null || obj2 === null) {
return obj1 === obj2;
}
// compare primitives
if (typeof (obj1) !== 'object' || typeof (obj2) !== 'object') {
return obj1.valueOf() === obj2.valueOf();
}
// if objects are of different types or lengths they can't be equal
if (obj1.constructor !== obj2.constructor || (obj1.length !== undefined && obj1.length !== obj2.length)) {
return false;
}
// iterate the objects
for (i in obj1) {
// build the parents list for object on the left (obj1)
if (parents1 === undefined) parents1 = [];
if (obj1.constructor === Object) parents1.push(obj1);
// build the parents list for object on the right (obj2)
if (parents2 === undefined) parents2 = [];
if (obj2.constructor === Object) parents2.push(obj2);
// walk through object properties
if (obj1.propertyIsEnumerable(i)) {
if (obj2.propertyIsEnumerable(i)) {
// if object at i was met while going down here
// it's a self reference
if ((obj1[i].constructor === Object && parents1.indexOf(obj1[i]) >= 0) || (obj2[i].constructor === Object && parents2.indexOf(obj2[i]) >= 0)) {
if (obj1[i] !== obj2[i]) {
return false;
}
continue;
}
// it's not a self reference so we are here
if (!deepEquals(obj1[i], obj2[i], parents1, parents2)) {
return false;
}
} else {
// obj2[i] does not exist
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
};
Tests:
// message is displayed on failure
// clean console === all tests passed
function assertTrue(cond, msg) {
if (!cond) {
console.log(msg);
}
}
var a = 'sdf',
b = 'sdf';
assertTrue(deepEquals(b, a), 'Strings are equal.');
b = 'dfs';
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Strings are not equal.');
a = 9;
b = 9;
assertTrue(deepEquals(b, a), 'Numbers are equal.');
b = 3;
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Numbers are not equal.');
a = false;
b = false;
assertTrue(deepEquals(b, a), 'Booleans are equal.');
b = true;
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Booleans are not equal.');
a = null;
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Boolean is not equal to null.');
a = function () {
return true;
};
assertTrue(deepEquals(
[
[1, 1, 1],
[2, 'asdf', [1, a]],
[3, {
'a': 1.0
},
true]
],
[
[1, 1, 1],
[2, 'asdf', [1, a]],
[3, {
'a': 1.0
},
true]
]), 'Arrays are equal.');
assertTrue(!deepEquals(
[
[1, 1, 1],
[2, 'asdf', [1, a]],
[3, {
'a': 1.0
},
true]
],
[
[1, 1, 1],
[2, 'asdf', [1, a]],
[3, {
'a': '1'
},
true]
]), 'Arrays are not equal.');
a = {
prop: 'val'
};
a.self = a;
b = {
prop: 'val'
};
b.self = a;
assertTrue(deepEquals(b, a), 'Immediate self referencing objects are equal.');
a.prop = 'shmal';
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Immediate self referencing objects are not equal.');
a = {
prop: 'val',
inside: {}
};
a.inside.self = a;
b = {
prop: 'val',
inside: {}
};
b.inside.self = a;
assertTrue(deepEquals(b, a), 'Deep self referencing objects are equal.');
b.inside.self = b;
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Deep self referencing objects are not equeal. Not the same instance.');
b.inside.self = {foo: 'bar'};
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Deep self referencing objects are not equal. Completely different object.');
a = {};
b = {};
a.self = a;
b.self = {};
assertTrue(!deepEquals(b, a), 'Empty object and self reference of an empty object.');

If you are using lodash and don't want to modify either array, you can use the function _.xor(). It compares the two arrays as sets and returns the set that contains their difference. If the length of this difference is zero, the two arrays are essentially equal:
var a = [1, 2, 3];
var b = [3, 2, 1];
var c = new Array(1, 2, 3);
_.xor(a, b).length === 0
true
_.xor(b, c).length === 0
true

Check every each value by a for loop once you checked the size of the array.
function equalArray(a, b) {
if (a.length === b.length) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (a[i] !== b[i]) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}

Using map() and reduce():
function arraysEqual (a1, a2) {
return a1 === a2 || (
a1 !== null && a2 !== null &&
a1.length === a2.length &&
a1
.map(function (val, idx) { return val === a2[idx]; })
.reduce(function (prev, cur) { return prev && cur; }, true)
);
}

If you wish to check arrays of objects for equality and order does NOT matter, i.e.
areEqual([{id: "0"}, {id: "1"}], [{id: "1"}, {id: "0"}]) // true
you'll want to sort the arrays first. lodash has all the tools you'll need, by combining sortBy and isEqual:
// arr1 & arr2: Arrays of objects
// sortProperty: the property of the object with which you want to sort
// Note: ensure every object in both arrays has your chosen sortProperty
// For example, arr1 = [{id: "v-test_id0"}, {id: "v-test_id1"}]
// and arr2 = [{id: "v-test_id1"}, {id: "v-test_id0"}]
// sortProperty should be 'id'
function areEqual (arr1, arr2, sortProperty) {
return _.areEqual(_.sortBy(arr1, sortProperty), _.sortBy(arr2, sortProperty))
}
EDIT: Since sortBy returns a new array, there is no need to clone your arrays before sorting. The original arrays will not be mutated.
Note that for lodash's isEqual, order does matter. The above example will return false if sortBy is not applied to each array first.

This method sucks, but I've left it here for reference so others avoid this path:
Using Option 1 from #ninjagecko worked best for me:
Array.prototype.equals = function(array) {
return array instanceof Array && JSON.stringify(this) === JSON.stringify(array) ;
}
a = [1, [2, 3]]
a.equals([[1, 2], 3]) // false
a.equals([1, [2, 3]]) // true
It will also handle the null and undefined case, since we're adding this to the prototype of array and checking that the other argument is also an array.

There is no easy way to do this. I needed this as well, but wanted a function that can take any two variables and test for equality. That includes non-object values, objects, arrays and any level of nesting.
In your question, you mention wanting to ignore the order of the values in an array. My solution doesn't inherently do that, but you can achieve it by sorting the arrays before comparing for equality
I also wanted the option of casting non-objects to strings so that [1,2]===["1",2]
Since my project uses UnderscoreJs, I decided to make it a mixin rather than a standalone function.
You can test it out on http://jsfiddle.net/nemesarial/T44W4/
Here is my mxin:
_.mixin({
/**
Tests for the equality of two variables
valA: first variable
valB: second variable
stringifyStatics: cast non-objects to string so that "1"===1
**/
equal:function(valA,valB,stringifyStatics){
stringifyStatics=!!stringifyStatics;
//check for same type
if(typeof(valA)!==typeof(valB)){
if((_.isObject(valA) || _.isObject(valB))){
return false;
}
}
//test non-objects for equality
if(!_.isObject(valA)){
if(stringifyStatics){
var valAs=''+valA;
var valBs=''+valB;
ret=(''+valA)===(''+valB);
}else{
ret=valA===valB;
}
return ret;
}
//test for length
if(_.size(valA)!=_.size(valB)){
return false;
}
//test for arrays first
var isArr=_.isArray(valA);
//test whether both are array or both object
if(isArr!==_.isArray(valB)){
return false;
}
var ret=true;
if(isArr){
//do test for arrays
_.each(valA,function(val,idx,lst){
if(!ret){return;}
ret=ret && _.equal(val,valB[idx],stringifyStatics);
});
}else{
//do test for objects
_.each(valA,function(val,idx,lst){
if(!ret){return;}
//test for object member exists
if(!_.has(valB,idx)){
ret=false;
return;
}
// test for member equality
ret=ret && _.equal(val,valB[idx],stringifyStatics);
});
}
return ret;
}
});
This is how you use it:
_.equal([1,2,3],[1,2,"3"],true)
To demonstrate nesting, you can do this:
_.equal(
['a',{b:'b',c:[{'someId':1},2]},[1,2,3]],
['a',{b:'b',c:[{'someId':"1"},2]},["1",'2',3]]
,true);

It handle all possible stuff and even reference itself in structure of object. You can see the example at the end of code.
var deepCompare = (function() {
function internalDeepCompare (obj1, obj2, objects) {
var i, objPair;
if (obj1 === obj2) {
return true;
}
i = objects.length;
while (i--) {
objPair = objects[i];
if ( (objPair.obj1 === obj1 && objPair.obj2 === obj2) ||
(objPair.obj1 === obj2 && objPair.obj2 === obj1) ) {
return true;
}
}
objects.push({obj1: obj1, obj2: obj2});
if (obj1 instanceof Array) {
if (!(obj2 instanceof Array)) {
return false;
}
i = obj1.length;
if (i !== obj2.length) {
return false;
}
while (i--) {
if (!internalDeepCompare(obj1[i], obj2[i], objects)) {
return false;
}
}
}
else {
switch (typeof obj1) {
case "object":
// deal with null
if (!(obj2 && obj1.constructor === obj2.constructor)) {
return false;
}
if (obj1 instanceof RegExp) {
if (!(obj2 instanceof RegExp && obj1.source === obj2.source)) {
return false;
}
}
else if (obj1 instanceof Date) {
if (!(obj2 instanceof Date && obj1.getTime() === obj2.getTime())) {
return false;
}
}
else {
for (i in obj1) {
if (obj1.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
if (!(obj2.hasOwnProperty(i) && internalDeepCompare(obj1[i], obj2[i], objects))) {
return false;
}
}
}
}
break;
case "function":
if (!(typeof obj2 === "function" && obj1+"" === obj2+"")) {
return false;
}
break;
default: //deal with NaN
if (obj1 !== obj2 && obj1 === obj1 && obj2 === obj2) {
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
return function (obj1, obj2) {
return internalDeepCompare(obj1, obj2, []);
};
}());
/*
var a = [a, undefined, new Date(10), /.+/, {a:2}, function(){}, Infinity, -Infinity, NaN, 0, -0, 1, [4,5], "1", "-1", "a", null],
b = [b, undefined, new Date(10), /.+/, {a:2}, function(){}, Infinity, -Infinity, NaN, 0, -0, 1, [4,5], "1", "-1", "a", null];
deepCompare(a, b);
*/

var a= [1, 2, 3, '3'];
var b = [1, 2, 3];
var c = a.filter(function (i) { return ! ~b.indexOf(i); });
alert(c.length);

How to know if all javascript object values are true?

In JavaScript, I need to know if all object items are set to true.
If I have the following object:
var myObj = {title:true, name:true, email:false};
I could write something like this :
if(myObj.title && myObj.name && myObj.email){
/*Some code */
};
But I am looking for the simplest way to write it. eg :
if(myObj all is true){
/*Some code */
};
I might have another object with 10-20 items inside it, and will need to know if all are true.

With ES2017 Object.values() life's even simpler.
Object.values(yourTestObject).every(item => item)
Even shorter version with Boolean() function [thanks to xab]
Object.values(yourTestObject).every(Boolean)
Or with stricter true checks
Object.values(yourTestObject)
.every(item => item === true)

In modern browsers:
var allTrue = Object.keys(myObj).every(function(k){ return myObj[k] });
If you really want to check for true rather than just a truthy value:
var allTrue = Object.keys(myObj).every(function(k){ return myObj[k] === true });

How about something like:
function allTrue(obj)
{
for(var o in obj)
if(!obj[o]) return false;
return true;
}
var myObj1 = {title:true, name:true, email:false};
var myObj2 = {title:true, name:true, email:true};
document.write('<br />myObj1 all true: ' + allTrue(myObj1));
document.write('<br />myObj2 all true: ' + allTrue(myObj2));
A few disclaimers: This will return true if all values are true-ish, not necessarily exactly equal to the Boolean value of True. Also, it will scan all properties of the passed in object, including its prototype. This may or may not be what you need, however it should work fine on a simple object literal like the one you provided.

Quickest way is a loop
for(var index in myObj){
if(!myObj[index]){ //check if it is truly false
var fail = true
}
}
if(fail){
//test failed
}
This will loop all values in the array then check if the value is false and if it is then it will set the fail variable, witch will tell you that the test failed.

You can use every from lodash
const obj1 = { a: 1, b: 2, c: true };
const obj2 = { a: true, b: true, c: true };
_.every(obj1, true); // false
_.every(obj2, true); // true

How can I convert the "arguments" object to an array in JavaScript?

Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
The arguments object in JavaScript is an odd wart—it acts just like an array in most situations, but it's not actually an array object. Since it's really something else entirely, it doesn't have the useful functions from Array.prototype like forEach, sort, filter, and map.
It's trivially easy to construct a new array from an arguments object with a simple for loop. For example, this function sorts its arguments:
function sortArgs() {
var args = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++)
args[i] = arguments[i];
return args.sort();
}
However, this is a rather pitiful thing to have to do simply to get access to the extremely useful JavaScript array functions. Is there a built-in way to do it using the standard library?

ES6 using rest parameters
If you are able to use ES6 you can use:
Rest Parameters
function sortArgs(...args) {
return args.sort(function (a, b) { return a - b; });
}
document.body.innerHTML = sortArgs(12, 4, 6, 8).toString();
As you can read in the link
The rest parameter syntax allows us to represent an indefinite number of arguments as an array.
If you are curious about the ... syntax, it is called Spread Operator and you can read more here.
ES6 using Array.from()
Using Array.from:
function sortArgs() {
return Array.from(arguments).sort(function (a, b) { return a - b; });
}
document.body.innerHTML = sortArgs(12, 4, 6, 8).toString();
Array.from simply convert Array-like or Iterable objects into Array instances.
ES5
You can actually just use Array's slice function on an arguments object, and it will convert it into a standard JavaScript array. You'll just have to reference it manually through Array's prototype:
function sortArgs() {
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
return args.sort();
}
Why does this work? Well, here's an excerpt from the ECMAScript 5 documentation itself:
NOTE: The slice function is intentionally generic; it does not require that its this value be an Array object. Therefore it can be transferred to other kinds of objects for use as a method. Whether the slice function can be applied successfully to a host object is implementation-dependent.
Therefore, slice works on anything that has a length property, which arguments conveniently does.
If Array.prototype.slice is too much of a mouthful for you, you can abbreviate it slightly by using array literals:
var args = [].slice.call(arguments);
However, I tend to feel that the former version is more explicit, so I'd prefer it instead. Abusing the array literal notation feels hacky and looks strange.

It's also worth referencing this Bluebird promises library wiki page that shows how to manage the arguments object into array in a way that makes the function optimizable under V8 JavaScript engine:
function doesntLeakArguments() {
var args = new Array(arguments.length);
for(var i = 0; i < args.length; ++i) {
args[i] = arguments[i];
}
return args;
}
This method is used in favor of var args = [].slice.call(arguments);. The author also shows how a build step can help reduce the verbosity.

function sortArgs(){ return [].slice.call(arguments).sort() }
// Returns the arguments object itself
function sortArgs(){ return [].sort.call(arguments) }
Some array methods are intentionally made not to require the target object to be an actual array. They only require the target to have a property named length and indices (which must be zero or larger integers).
[].sort.call({0:1, 1:0, length:2}) // => ({0:0, 1:1, length:2})

Use:
function sortArguments() {
return arguments.length === 1 ? [arguments[0]] :
Array.apply(null, arguments).sort();
}
Array(arg1, arg2, ...) returns [arg1, arg2, ...]
Array(str1) returns [str1]
Array(num1) returns an array that has num1 elements
You must check number of arguments!
Array.slice version (slower):
function sortArguments() {
return Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).sort();
}
Array.push version (slower, faster than slice):
function sortArguments() {
var args = [];
Array.prototype.push.apply(args, arguments);
return args.sort();
}
Move version (slower, but small size is faster):
function sortArguments() {
var args = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; ++i)
args[i] = arguments[i];
return args.sort();
}
Array.concat version (slowest):
function sortArguments() {
return Array.prototype.concat.apply([], arguments).sort();
}

If you're using jQuery, the following is a good deal easier to remember in my opinion:
function sortArgs(){
return $.makeArray(arguments).sort();
}

In ECMAScript 6 there's no need to use ugly hacks like Array.prototype.slice(). You can instead use spread syntax (...).
(function() {
console.log([...arguments]);
}(1, 2, 3))
It may look strange, but it's fairly simple. It just extracts arguments' elements and put them back into the array. If you still don't understand, see this examples:
console.log([1, ...[2, 3], 4]);
console.log([...[1, 2, 3]]);
console.log([...[...[...[1]]]]);
Note that it doesn't work in some older browsers like IE 11, so if you want to support these browsers, you should use Babel.

Here is benchmark of several methods converting arguments into array.
As for me, the best solution for small amount of arguments is:
function sortArgs (){
var q = [];
for (var k = 0, l = arguments.length; k < l; k++){
q[k] = arguments[k];
}
return q.sort();
}
For other cases:
function sortArgs (){ return Array.apply(null, arguments).sort(); }

Here's a clean and concise solution:
function argsToArray() {
return Object.values(arguments);
}
// example usage
console.log(
argsToArray(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
.map(arg => arg*11)
);
Object.values( ) will return the values of an object as an array, and since arguments is an object, it will essentially convert arguments into an array, thus providing you with all of an array's helper functions such as map, forEach, filter, etc.

I recommend using ECMAScript 6 spread operator, which will Bind trailing parameters to an array. With this solution you don't need to touch the arguments object and your code will be simplified. The downside of this solution is that it does not work across most browsers, so instead you will have to use a JS compiler such as Babel. Under the hood Babel transforms arguments into a Array with a for loop.
function sortArgs(...args) {
return args.sort();
}
If you can not use a ECMAScript 6, I recommend looking at some of the other answers such as #Jonathan Fingland
function sortArgs() {
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
return args.sort();
}

Lodash:
var args = _.toArray(arguments);
in action:
(function(){ console.log(_.toArray(arguments).splice(1)); })(1, 2, 3)
produces:
[2,3]

Use Array.from(), which takes an array-like object (such as arguments) as argument and converts it to array:
(function() {
console.log(Array.from(arguments));
}(1, 2, 3));
Note that it doesn't work in some older browsers like IE 11, so if you want to support these browsers, you should use Babel.

function sortArg(){
var args = Array.from(arguments); return args.sort();
}
function sortArg(){
var args = Array.from(arguments);
return args.sort();
}
console.log(sortArg('a', 'b', 1, 2, '34', 88, 20, '19', 39, 'd', 'z', 'ak', 'bu', 90));

Another Answer.
Use Black Magic Spells:
function sortArguments() {
arguments.__proto__ = Array.prototype;
return arguments.slice().sort();
}
Firefox, Chrome, Node.js, IE11 are OK.

Try using Object.setPrototypeOf()
Explanation: Set prototype of arguments to Array.prototype
function toArray() {
return Object.setPrototypeOf(arguments, Array.prototype)
}
console.log(toArray("abc", 123, {def:456}, [0,[7,[14]]]))
Explanation: Take each index of arguments , place item into an array at corresponding index of array.
could alternatively use Array.prototype.map()
function toArray() {
return [].map.call(arguments, (_,k,a) => a[k])
}
console.log(toArray("abc", 123, {def:456}, [0,[7,[14]]]))
Explanation: Take each index of arguments , place item into an array at corresponding index of array.
for..of loop
function toArray() {
let arr = []; for (let prop of arguments) arr.push(prop); return arr
}
console.log(toArray("abc", 123, {def:456}, [0,[7,[14]]]))
or Object.create()
Explanation: Create object, set properties of object to items at each index of arguments; set prototype of created object to Array.prototype
function toArray() {
var obj = {};
for (var prop in arguments) {
obj[prop] = {
value: arguments[prop],
writable: true,
enumerable: true,
configurable: true
}
}
return Object.create(Array.prototype, obj);
}
console.log(toArray("abc", 123, {def: 456}, [0, [7, [14]]]))

Benshmarck 3 methods :
function test()
{
console.log(arguments.length + ' Argument(s)');
var i = 0;
var loop = 1000000;
var t = Date.now();
while(i < loop)
{
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 0);
i++;
}
console.log(Date.now() - t);
i = 0,
t = Date.now();
while(i < loop)
{
Array.apply(null, arguments);
i++;
}
console.log(Date.now() - t);
i = 0,
t = Date.now();
while(i < loop)
{
arguments.length == 1 ? [arguments[0]] : Array.apply(null, arguments);
i++;
}
console.log(Date.now() - t);
}
test();
test(42);
test(42, 44);
test(42, 44, 88, 64, 10, 64, 700, 15615156, 4654, 9);
test(42, 'truc', 44, '47', 454, 88, 64, '#ehuehe', 10, 64, 700, 15615156, 4654, 9,97,4,94,56,8,456,156,1,456,867,5,152489,74,5,48479,89,897,894,894,8989,489,489,4,489,488989,498498);
RESULT?
0 Argument(s)
256
329
332
1 Argument(s)
307
418
4
2 Argument(s)
375
364
367
10 Argument(s)
962
601
604
40 Argument(s)
3095
1264
1260
Enjoy !

function sortArgs(...args) {
return args.sort(function (a, b) { return a - b; });
}
document.body.innerHTML = sortArgs(1, 2, 3, 4).toString();

Although rest parameters work well, if you want to continue to use arguments for some reason, consider
function sortArgs() {
return [...arguments].sort()
}
[...arguments] can be considered a sort of alternative to Array.from(arguments), which also works perfectly well.
An ES7 alternative is an array comprehension:
[for (i of arguments) i].sort()
This could be easiest if you want to process or filter the arguments prior to sorting:
[for (i of arguments) if (i % 2) Math.log(i)].sort()

function x(){
var rest = [...arguments]; console.log(rest);return
rest.constructor;
};
x(1,2,3)
I tried simple destructing technique

The Arguments object is only available inside a function body. Although you can index the Arguments Object like an array, it is not an array. It does not have any array properties other than length.
// function arguments length 5
function properties(a,b,c,d,e){
var function_name= arguments.callee.name
var arguments_length= arguments.length;
var properties_length= properties.length;
var function_from= properties.caller.name;
console.log('I am the function name: '+ function_name);
console.log('I am the function length, I am function spacific: '+ properties_length);
console.log('I am the arguments length, I am context/excution spacific: '+ arguments_length);
console.log('I am being called From: '+ function_from );
}
// arguments 3
function parent(){
properties(1,2,3);
}
//arguments length 3 because execution spacific
parent();
Although it can be indexed like an array as you can see in this example:
function add(){
var sum=0;
for(var i=0; i< arguments.length;i++){
sum = sum + arguments[i];
}
return sum;
}
console.log(add(1,2,3));
However, the Arguments object is not an array and does not have any other properties other than length.
You can convert the arguments object into an array at which point you can access the Arguments object.
There are many ways you can access the arguments object inside a function body, and these include:
you can call the Array.prototoype.slice.call method.
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments)
function giveMeArgs(arg1,arg2){
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
return args
}
console.log( giveMeArgs(1,2));
you can use the array literal
[].slice.call(arguments).
function giveMeArgs(arg1,arg2){
var args = [].slice.call(arguments);
return args;
}
console.log( giveMeArgs(1,2) );
you can use Rest ...
function giveMeArgs(...args){
return args;
}
console.log(giveMeArgs(1,2))
you can use spread [...]
function giveMeArgs(){
var args = [...arguments];
return args;
}
console.log(giveMeArgs(1,2));
you can use Array.from()
function giveMeArgs(){
var args = Array.from(arguments);
return args;
}
console.log(giveMeArgs(1,2));

You can create a reusable function to do it with any arguments, the simplest one is something like this:
function sortArgs() {
return [...arguments].sort();
}
sortArgs('ali', 'reza', 1, 2, 'a'); //[1, 2, "a", "ali", "reza"];
Spread syntax can be used in ES6 and above...
But if you'd like to use something compatible with ES5 and below, you can use Array.prototype.slice.call, so you code looks like this:
function sortArgs() {
return Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).sort();
}
sortArgs('ali', 'reza', 1, 2, 'a'); //[1, 2, "a", "ali", "reza"];
There are also few other ways to do this, for Example using Array.from or loop through the arguments and assign them to a new array...

This is a very old question, but I think I have a solution that is slightly easier to type than previous solutions and doesn't rely on external libraries:
function sortArguments() {
return Array.apply(null, arguments).sort();
}

Categories

Resources