What is the difference between uneval() and .toSource() - javascript

What is the difference between uneval(...) and .toSource()?
The toSource() method returns a string representing the source code of the object.
The uneval() method creates an string representation of the source code of an Object.

One takes a param, the other doesn't. That appears to be the only difference, although the use of both is discouraged.
uneval(object);
Object.toSource();
obj.toSource();
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/uneval
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/toSource
Straight from those sites above:
Non-standard
This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.
I'd stay away from this feature. There's likely a better way to accomplish what you're trying to do.

uneval() is a method you can pass a piece of javascript to.
.toSource() is an extension method for objects.
Both functions output the same shown in the following example:
var a = 1234;
console.log(uneval(a)); //outputs "1234"
console.log(a.toSource()); //outputs "1234"

Be aware: Both, toSource and uneval, are proprietary non-standard features.
While uneval is a function, i.e. a window method independend from the subject, toSource is implemented as a method of the subject. Due to this fact, additional error handling needs to be done when using toSource. On the other hand, uneval is capable to handle variables not being initialized with an actual object.
for(let v of [null, undefined])
{
console.log(uneval(v));
try
{
console.log(v.toSource());
}
catch(e)
{
console.log(e.message);
}
}

Related

What are the harmful effects of manipulating an object passed in as a parameter? [duplicate]

Eclipse has an option to warn on assignment to a method's parameter (inside the method), as in:
public void doFoo(int a){
if (a<0){
a=0; // this will generate a warning
}
// do stuff
}
Normally I try to activate (and heed) almost all available compiler warnings, but in this case I'm not really sure whether it's worth it.
I see legitimate cases for changing a parameter in a method (e.g.: Allowing a parameter to be "unset" (e.g. null) and automatically substituting a default value), but few situations where it would cause problems, except that it might be a bit confusing to reassign a parameter in the middle of the method.
Do you use such warnings? Why / why not?
Note:
Avoiding this warning is of course equivalent to making the method parameter final (only then it's a compiler error :-)). So this question Why should I use the keyword "final" on a method parameter in Java? might be related.
The confusing-part is the reason for the warning. If you reassign a parameter a new value in the method (probably conditional), then it is not clear, what a is. That's why it is seen as good style, to leave method-params unchanged.
For me, as long as you do it early and clearly, it's fine. As you say, doing it buried deep in four conditionals half-way into a 30-line function is less than ideal.
You also obviously have to be careful when doing this with object references, since calling methods on the object you were given may change its state and communicate information back to the caller, but of course if you've subbed in your own placeholder, that information is not communicated.
The flip side is that declaring a new variable and assigning the argument (or a default if argument needs defaulting) to it may well be clearer, and will almost certainly not be less efficient -- any decent compiler (whether the primary compiler or a JIT) will optimize it out when feasible.
Assigning a method parameter is not something most people expect to happen in most methods. Since we read the code with the assumption that parameter values are fixed, an assignment is usually considered poor practice, if only by convention and the principle of least astonishment.
There are always alternatives to assigning method parameters: usually a local temporary copy is just fine. But generally, if you find you need to control the logic of your function through parameter reassignment, it could benefit from refactoring into smaller methods.
Reassigning to the method parameter variable is usually a mistake if the parameter is a reference type.
Consider the following code:
MyObject myObject = new myObject();
myObject.Foo = "foo";
doFoo(myObject);
// what's the value of myObject.Foo here?
public void doFoo(MyObject myFoo){
myFoo = new MyObject("Bar");
}
Many people will expect that at after the call to doFoo, myObject.Foo will equal "Bar". Of course, it won't - because Java is not pass by reference, but pass by reference value - that is to say, a copy of the reference is passed to the method. Reassigning to that copy only has an effect in the local scope, and not at the callsite. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts.
Different compiler warnings can be appropriate for different situations. Sure, some are applicable to most or all situations, but this does not seem to be one of them.
I would think of this particular warning as the compiler giving you the option to be warned about a method parameter being reassigned when you need it, rather than a rule that method parameters should not be reassigned. Your example constitutes a perfectly valid case for it.
I sometimes use it in situations like these:
void countdown(int n)
{
for (; n > 0; n--) {
// do something
}
}
to avoid introducing a variable i in the for loop. Typically I only use these kind of 'tricks' in very short functions.
Personally I very much dislike 'correcting' parameters inside a function this way. I prefer to catch these by asserts and make sure that the contract is right.
I usually don't need to assign new values to method parameters.
As to best-practices - the warning also avoids confusion when facing code like:
public void foo() {
int a = 1;
bar(a);
System.out.println(a);
}
public void bar(int a) {
a++;
}
You shoud write code with no side effect : every method shoud be a function that doesn't change . Otherwise it's a command and it can be dangerous.
See definitions for command and function on the DDD website :
Function :
An operation that computes and returns a result without observable side effects.
Command : An operation that effects some change to the system (for
example, setting a variable). An
operation that intentionally creates a
side effect.

localStorage["itemName"] vs. localStorage.getItem("itemName"); [duplicate]

I recently asked a question about LocalStorage. Using JSON.parse(localStorage.item) and JSON.parse(localStorage['item']) weren't working to return NULL when the item hadn't been set yet.
However, JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem('item') did work. And it turns out, JSON.parse(localStorage.testObject || null) also works.
One of the comments basically said that localStorage.getItem() and localStorage.setItem() should always be preferred:
The getter and setter provide a consistent, standardised and
crossbrowser compatible way to work with the LS api and should always
be preferred over the other ways. -Christoph
I've come to like using the shorthand dot and bracket notations for localStorage, but I'm curious to know others' take on this. Is localStorage.getItem('item') better than localStorage.item or localStorage['item'] OR as long as they work are the shorthand notations okay?
Both direct property access (localStorage.foo or localStorage['foo']) and using the functional interface (localStorage.getItem('foo')) work fine. Both are standard and cross-browser compatible.* According to the spec:
The supported property names on a Storage object are the keys of each key/value pair currently present in the list associated with the object, in the order that the keys were last added to the storage area.
They just behave differently when no key/value pair is found with the requested name. For example, if key 'foo' does not exist, var a = localStorage.foo; will result in a being undefined, while var a = localStorage.getItem('foo'); will result in a having the value null. As you have discovered, undefined and null are not interchangeable in JavaScript. :)
EDIT: As Christoph points out in his answer, the functional interface is the only way to reliably store and retrieve values under keys equal to the predefined properties of localStorage. (There are six of these: length, key, setItem, getItem, removeItem, and clear.) So, for instance, the following will always work:
localStorage.setItem('length', 2);
console.log(localStorage.getItem('length'));
Note in particular that the first statement will not affect the property localStorage.length (except perhaps incrementing it if there was no key 'length' already in localStorage). In this respect, the spec seems to be internally inconsistent.
However, the following will probably not do what you want:
localStorage.length = 2;
console.log(localStorage.length);
Interestingly, the first is a no-op in Chrome, but is synonymous with the functional call in Firefox. The second will always log the number of keys present in localStorage.
* This is true for browsers that support web storage in the first place. (This includes pretty much all modern desktop and mobile browsers.) For environments that simulate local storage using cookies or other techniques, the behavior depends on the shim that is used. Several polyfills for localStorage can be found here.
The question is already quite old, but since I have been quoted in the question, I think I should say two words about my statement.
The Storage Object is rather special, it's an object, which provides access to a list of key/value pairs. Thus it's not an ordinary object or array.
For example it has the length attribute, which unlike the array length attribute is readonly and returns the number of keys in the storage.
With an array you can do:
var a = [1,2,3,4];
a.length // => 4
a.length = 2;
a // => [1,2]
Here we have the first reason to use the getters/setters. What if you want to set an item called length?
localStorage.length = "foo";
localStorage.length // => 0
localStorage.setItem("length","foo");
// the "length" key is now only accessable via the getter method:
localStorage.length // => 1
localStorage.getItem("length") // => "foo"
With other members of the Storage object it's even more critical, since they are writable and you can accidently overwrite methods like getItem. Using the API methods prevents any of these possible problems and provides a consistent Interface.
Also interesting point is the following paragraph in the spec (emphasized by me):
The setItem() and removeItem() methods must be atomic with respect to failure. In the case of failure, the method does nothing. That is, changes to the data storage area must either be successful, or the data storage area must not be changed at all.
Theoretically there should be no difference between the getters/setters and the [] access, but you never know...
I know it's an old post but since nobody actually mentioned performance I set up some JsPerf tests to benchmark it and as well as being a coherent interface getItem and setItem are also consistently faster than using dot notation or brackets as well as being much easier to read.
Here are my tests on JsPerf
As it was mentioned, there is almost no difference except of nonexisting key. The difference in performance varies depending on what browser/OS are you using. But it is not really that different.
I suggest you to use standard interface, just because it is a recommended way of using it.

Is it possible to overwrite javaScript primitive data type?

Question is self explanatory. I know it is possible to extend primitive data types such as string but is it possible to overwrite it?
This is a question that has been asked in an interview.
No, you cannot overwrite anything. EcmaScript defines the primitive types Undefined, Null, Boolean, Number, and String; these are internal and will be used regardless of what you are doing (for example overwriting the global String constructor). Type conversion and evaluation of literals does not rely on any public functions but uses only these internal types and the algorithms specified for them.
Of course, if someone does string coercion with String(myval) instead of ""+myval assigning to the global String variable will have an effect on that code. Any internal use would still point to the "old" function.
If you were talking about prototype objects for the primitive types (when used as objects), those are not overwritable as well. You may extend those objects, but as soon as you assign to e.g. Number.prototype you just have lost a reference to the actual, original number protype object. Example spec for The Number constructor:
The [prototype] of the newly constructed object is set to the original Number prototype object, the one that is the initial value of Number.prototype (15.7.3.1)
Yes (edit: almost). Open up a Javascript console (F12 if you're using Chrome) and type
String = function(){alert('bang!')};
You can overwrite (edit: almost) everything in Javascript — even the window global context! evil.js is a library that uses this trick to rewrite many native objects as possible.
Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous. I performed the String remapping code above, and since writing it down I've caused over 520 Javascript errors (and I've seen 'bang' alerted quite a few times). Native objects are used everywhere, and you shouldn't modify these in case 3rd party code relies on them in ways you don't know about. This is one of the reasons Prototype.js lost popularity — because its extension of native objects would often work against the expectations of other code.
Edit: Factually incorrect assertion that absolutely everything could be overwritten, as pointed out in Bergi's answer. Edits made inline.
You can extend prototypes of native types.
String.prototype.moo = function() {
console.log( 'Moo!' )
};
'Cow says'.moo();
>> "Moo!"
However you cannot directly overwrite constructors of built-in types unless you overwrite the reference to the entire object:
String = function() {
console.log( 'Custom function.' )
};
new String( 'Hello!' );
>> "Custom function."
>> String {} // now you've broken your website ;)
...but still:
'Wat?!'
>> "Wat?!" // you can still create strings by typing letters in quotes
So... the answer is "yes but no". You can mess with native types (Number, Date, String...) but you cannot re-define them entirely from scratch. They're a part of JS engine that you're using (most likely native C++ code) and this brings some limitations.
Possible like this but you must always succeed without side effects.Not good practice.
function Array() {
var obj = this;
var ind = 0;
var getNext = function(x) {
obj[ind++] setter = getNext;
if (x) alert("Data stolen from array: " + x.toString());
};
this[ind++] setter = getNext;
}
var a = ["private stuff"];
// alert("Data stolen from array: private stuff");

Monitor All JavaScript Object Properties (magic getters and setters)

How do I emulate PHP-style __get() and __set() magic getter/setters in JavaScript? A lot of people say that this is currently impossible. I am almost certain that it is possible because projects like nowjs (http://nowjs.com) do something like this.
I know that you can utilize get and set, but these don't work when you're not sure what the property name will be. For example, what if you wanted an event handler to execute when a new property is created?
Example of what I'd want to do:
var obj = {};
notify(obj, function(key, value) {
//key is now the name of the property being set.
//value is the value of the property about to be set
console.log("setting " + key + " to " + value);
});
obj.foo = 2; //prints "setting foo to 2"
obj.bar = {a: 2}; //prints "setting bar to [Object]"
//Notice that notify() worked even though 'foo' and 'bar' weren't even defined yet!
(The question is similar to the following questions:
Is there a way to monitor changes to an object?
JavaScript getter for all properties
)
EDIT: It looks like this feature is called "dynamic proxies" and should appear in the ECMAScript "Harmony" standard (probably ES6). You can read more here. A new 'Proxy' Object is introduced with a couple methods (I.e. Create() and createFunction() ).
One could do this:
//Constructing an object proxy (proto is optional)
var proxy = Proxy.create(handler, proto);
proxy.foo = 2; //Triggers 'set' function in the handler (read about it)
Bottom line here: it doesn't work in most browsers, but an implementation is available for Node.js: node-proxy.
Looking through the nowjs source code, I believe they do this by continuously monitoring the now object and pushing changes between client and server whenever they are detected. I admit I haven't fully grokked their code yet, however.
In a browser, this would be done with some fun setInterval hacks.
EDIT: yes, that is indeed what they do: line 368 of the client now.js. They do some more tricks so that once a new property is detected, future access to it is caught by getters and setters, but those modifications are only made every 1000 ms in a setTimeout.
Another piece of evidence that this is impossible in current JavaScript is that the proxies proposal for ECMAScript Harmony is designed explicitly to enable such scenarios, implying very strongly that they can't be done currently. Recent Mozilla browsers have a prototype proxies implementation, if perhaps that's enough. And apparently V8 is working to add support, which could be enough depending on what version of V8 Node is using these days.
EDIT2: oh cool, on the server side apparently nowjs does use proxies! Which likely means they are mature enough in Node for your usage. See what they do at https://github.com/Flotype/now/blob/master/lib/proxy.js. Or just do var Proxy = require("nodejs-proxy") and hope they follow the spec so you can take advantage of the documentation from MDC and elsewhere.
In Firefox, you can use Object.watch. If you look at this thread, Object.watch() for all browsers?, there's an example of using it something like it in all browsers.
Ooops, I just realized you want to watch all properties, not a specific property... The solution above is to watch a specific property.
Perhaps this post would help...? That is however, only for specific properties and Gecko based browsers... If you need support for other browsers, its buggy, but you could look into the onpropertychange. Here's the MSDN Page. Hope that helps a bit...

window.toString.call is undefined in IE8

When you run:
window.toString.call("")
everything's fine in FF/CH but in IE8 you get a script error. Investigating a bit more it turned out, that window.toString.call is undefined in IE8?
You can also run this one:
window.toString instanceof Function;
// false
alert(window.toString);
// function toString() {
// [native code]
// }
Why is that and how to solve it? And I started wondering how come jQuery works in the first place?
window is a host object, and the ECMAScript Language Specification (3rd edition) does not require host objects to be derived from the native Object object. In IE (and probably in some other browsers) host objects aren't, so they don't support any of the native methods or properties (although they may have methods or properties with the same names as native methods or properties which are accessible to scripts).
If all you want is to get hold of the language implementation's default native toString method then you should use Object.prototype.toString.call("").
NickFitz is correct, the toString method on the host object that you are finding is purely so that if you did
alert(window);
you would get the text [object]
All that the javascript method toString() used in your examples would acheive is to make a string from a string so the correct way to do what you are trying is;
var a =new String ("");
or simply
var b = "";
or if you really want to be silly;
var b = "".toString();

Categories

Resources