This question already has an answer here:
Double-Queue Code needs to be reduced
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
Is there any way for me to shorten this code by using pointers?
I need to make a class that has mostly the same function as a given array class unshift,shift,push and pop but with different names.
var makeDeque = function()
{
var a= [], r=new Array(a);
length = r.length=0;
pushHead=function(v)
{
r.unshift(v);
}
popHead=function()
{
return r.shift();
}
pushTail=function(v)
{
r.push(v);
}
popTail=function()
{
return r.pop();
}
isEmpty=function()
{
return r.length===0;
}
return this;
};
(function() {
var dq = makeDeque();
dq.pushTail(4);
dq.pushHead(3);
dq.pushHead(2);
dq.pushHead("one");
dq.pushTail("five");
print("length " + dq.length + "last item: " + dq.popTail());
while (!dq.isEmpty())
print(dq.popHead());
})();
Output should be
length 5last item: five
one
2
3
4
Thanks!
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but why not just add the extra methods you need to the Array prototype and call it directly?
I need to make a class that has mostly the same function as a given array class unshift,shift,push and pop but with different names.
I suppose you could add these "new" methods to Array.prototype.
Like this perhaps?
var makeDeque = (function (ap) {
var Deque = {
length: 0,
pushHead: ap.unshift,
popHead: ap.shift,
pushTail: ap.push,
popTail: ap.pop,
isEmpty: function () {
return !this.length;
}
};
return function () {
return Object.create(Deque);
};
})(Array.prototype);
DEMO
If it's still too long, you can always directly augment Array.prototype like others already mentionned. We agree that it's all experimental here and the only goal is to save characters.
!function (ap) {
ap.pushHead = ap.unshift;
ap.popHead = ap.shift;
ap.pushTail = ap.push;
ap.popTail = ap.pop;
ap.isEmpty = function () {
return !this.length;
};
}(Array.prototype);
function makeDeque() {
return [];
}
This can be compressed to 174 chars:
function makeDeque(){return[]}!function(e){e.pushHead=e.unshift;e.popHead=e.shift;e.pushTail=e.push;e.popTail=e.pop;e.isEmpty=function(){return!this.length}}(Array.prototype)
DEMO
Not sure why you need this, but my suggestions per best practice are:
Don't override the Array.prototype. The reason for this is because other libraries might try to do the same, and if you include these libraries into yours, there will be conflicts.
This code is not needed. var a= [], r=new Array(a);. You only need ...a = [];.
Ensure you are creating a real class. In your code, makeDeque is not doing what you want. It is returning this which when a function is not called with the new keyword will be the same as the window object (or undefined if you are using what is called as "strict mode"). In other words, you have made a lot of globals (which are usually a no-no, as they can conflict with other code too).
When you build a class, it is good to add to the prototype of your custom class. This is because the methods will only be built into memory one time and will be shared by all such objects.
So I would first refactor into something like this:
var makeDeque = (function() { // We don't need this wrapper in this case, as we don't have static properties, but I've kept it here since we do want to encapsulate variables in my example below this one (and sometimes you do need static properties).
function makeDeque () {
if (!(this instanceof makeDeque)) { // This block allows you to call makeDeque without using the "new" keyword (we will do it for the person using makeDeque)
return new makeDeque();
}
this.r = [];
this.length = 0;
}
makeDeque.prototype.setLength = function () {
return this.length = this.r.length;
};
makeDeque.prototype.pushHead=function(v) {
this.r.unshift(v);
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.popHead=function() {
return this.r.shift();
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.pushTail=function(v){
this.r.push(v);
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.popTail=function() {
return this.r.pop();
this.setLength();
};
makeDeque.prototype.isEmpty=function() {
return this.r.length === 0;
};
return makeDeque;
}());
Now you could shorten this as follows, but I wouldn't recommend doing this, since, as it was well said by Donald Knuth, "premature optimization is the root of all evil". If you try to shorten your code, it may make it inflexible.
var makeDeque = (function() {
function makeDeque () {
if (!(this instanceof makeDeque)) {
return new makeDeque();
}
this.r = [];
this.length = 0;
}
makeDeque.prototype.setLength = function () {
return this.length = this.r.length;
};
for (var i=0, methodArray = [
['pushHead', 'unshift'], ['popHead', 'shift'], ['pushTail', 'push'], ['popTail', 'pop']
]; i < methodArray.length; i++) {
makeDeque.prototype[methodArray[i][0]] = (function (i) { // We need to make a function and immediately pass in 'i' here because otherwise, the 'i' inside this function will end up being set to the value of 'i' after it ends this loop as opposed to the 'i' which varies with each loop. This is a common "gotcha" of JavaScript
return function () {
var ret = this.r[methodArray[i][1]].apply(this.r, arguments);
this.setLength();
return ret;
};
}(i));
}
makeDeque.prototype.isEmpty=function() {
return this.r.length === 0;
};
return makeDeque;
}());
If you need to get the length by a length property, as opposed to a method like setLength() which sets it manually after each update, either of the above code samples could be shortened by avoiding the setLength() method, but you'd need to use the Object.defineProperty which does not work (or does not work fully) in older browsers like IE < 9.
Related
Here is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to pass an instance of order to bill, where it would be indexed. The thing is that it's not working.
Am I stretching JS too thin here?
Any example on how to do this, or some reading material?
EDIT: Maybe I should add that this is supposed to be the user interface for a POS (Point of Sale) system. It should accept the order of products (each one with variable quantity), and process in the client's side the subtotal, total and number of items in the bill.
EDIT2: Not native english speaker. Maybe the names that I choose did not best suited the problem.
function Bill (prefix,maxForms,minForms) {
this.prefix = prefix;
this.maxForms = maxForms;
this.minForms = minForms;
this.items = [];
this.total = 0;
this.addOrder = function(order) {
if (this.items.length == 0)
{
this.items.push(order);
}
for (i=0;i<this.items.length;i++){
if (this.items[i].name === order.name) {
this.items[i].quantity = order.quantity;
this.items[i].price = order.price;
}
else {
this.items.push(order);
}
this.total = this.total + order.getSubTotal();
}
}
}
function Order (name,price,quantity) {
this.name = name;
this.price = price;
this.quantity = quantity;
this.getSubtotal = function () {
return this.price*this.quantity;
}
this.changeQuantity = function (newQuantity) {
this.quantity = newQuantity;
}
this.incrementQuantity = function () {
this.quantity = this.quantity + 1;
}
}
Here's an issue:
for (i = 0;/*...*/)
I would suggest you spend a little more time in JS.
It does look a lot like C / Java / C# / PHP, etc...
The problem, however, is that JS does not have any notion of block scope*.
* until ES6, that is
It only deals with function scope.
That is, a variable has the same reference through the whole function where it's defined (via var).
If a variable is not defined via var, the function goes up to its parent to find the value of the variable, and up from there, and up from there, until it hits window.<varname>.
You might actually be modifying window.i in your class' instance.
function Bill ( ) {
var bill = this,
i = 0;
for (i=0; /* ... */) { /*...*/ }
}
That said, you might do to spend time getting to know JS.
Most of what you've written looks absolutely fine, in English, as well.
I might break it down a little further:
function Bill () {
var bill = this;
extend(bill, {
total : 0,
items : [],
addOrder : function (order) {
var match = bill.findOrder(order.name);
if (!match) { bill.items.push(order); }
else { bill.updateOrder(match, order); }
bill.updateTotal();
},
findOrder : function (name) {
var matches = bill.items.filter(function (order) {
return order.name === name;
});
return matches[0];
},
updateOrder : function (current, updated) {
/* I don't know if you want to replace the old order, or add to it... */
/* so I'm "replacing" it, instead of increasing quantity, like you did */
current.quantity = updated.quantity;
current.price = updated.price;
},
updateTotal : function () {
bill.total = bill.items
.map(function (order) { return order.getSubtotal(); })
.reduce(function (tally, price) { return tally + price; }, 0);
}
});
}
var bill = new Bill();
bill.addOrder(new Order(/*...*/));
I'm doing a few things differently, here.
First, extend isn't a "built-in" function; there are a lot of implementations, in all sorts of libraries, but basically, it just saves me from writing bill.x = x; bill.y = y; bill.z = z;..., and use an object, instead.
Next, I'm using var bill = this;
and bill.method = function () { bill.total = /*...*/; };
instead of this.method = function () { };, because once you go two levels down, in functions, this no longer means the object you think it does.
this.method = function () {
this.async(function (response) {
// unless you change it yourself, `this` probably means `window`
this.value = response; // oops
});
};
// instead, try
var thing = this;
thing.method = function () {
thing.async(function (response) {
thing.value = response;
});
};
Of course, you can always mix and match, as long as you know how far down you can go (one level)...
...but that means you really, really need to care about using this a whole lot.
var thing = this;
this.method = function () {
this.async(function (val) {
thing.value = val;
});
};
Much more confusing than just referring to the instance by a variable, rather than combining the two.
There are dozens of ways of doing this; some look very class-like, others might be 100% functional, and in ES6, you might just use classes altogether.
But there are some ideas, and some reasons behind doing them that way (especially if you don't know where the differences are in JS vs the other C-looking languages).
I don't think you're stretching JS too thin, at all.
Once all of the issues on line 80 are fixed. All you need to do is:
var order = new Order("My Order", 12, 2);
var bill = new Bill(blah, blah, blah);
bill.addOrder(order);
A few issues right off the bat:
this.total = this.total + order.subTotal();·
There is a garbage char at the end.
Order does not have a subtotal function. It should be getSubtotal.
The 2 assignments to this.items[i].quantity and this.items[i].price are superfluous, since you are assigning properties to themselves. Remember, this.items[i] === order. This is not a bug, but it is inefficient.
You should have something like this.total = 0; at the top of Bill.
I think you want:
this.items[i].quantity += order.quantity;
this.items[i].price += order.price;
This will update quantity with whatever quantity order has. Secondly, I see you have an order function. Not an order object. Was that intentional? Are you planning to add instances of this bill/order object to each other? I don't think that's where you were going. Make sure they are separate objects that you are nesting.
Are you getting anything except undefined? I don't think you are because you're not returning anything.
Put:
return this;
at the end of your functions. Make sure you save them to a var when you make them:
bill = Bill(v,v,v);
order = Order(v,v,v);
then you can:
bill.addOrder(order);
See if that helps.
I will give you a sample example of my problem to remove the logical complexity and let you be focus on the important part. Of course, this example will be a bit useless...
I have a tree structure where node are like that
{
path: "...",
childs : []
}
Now, I have to write all the full paths from root to each leaf in an array.
My design is very poor:
function listPaths(node) {
var result = [];
function listForNode(n, parentFullPath) {
var thisPath = parentFullPath + "/" + n.path;
result.push(thisPath);
n.childs.forEach(function (child) {
listForNode(child, thisPath);
});
}
listForNode(node, "");
return result;
}
It could be nice but I can't write the test with Mocha without having an insane 600 line code test file. At this moment, you should be asking why. The reason is the complexity of the real purpose, that's not relevant for my question. My goal is to having something 'mockable' cause I'm used to. (Java dev). But I fail.
Do you have any pattern that I can use to resolve this one? I'm not really good at JS patterns. :/
Visitor? Making an Y Combinator? So many possibility...
Thank you for reading me
You need to remember that functions are first class citizens in javascript.
I see that essentially what you have is something like
function createVisitor(parentsAccumulatorInitialValue, parentsAccumulator){
var visitor = function myVisitor (node) {
var result;
function listForNode(n, parentsAcc) {
var thisPath = parentsAccumulator(parentsAcc, n);
result.push(thisPath);
n.childs && n.childs.forEach(function (child) {
listForNode(child, thisPath);
});
}
result = [];
listForNode(node, parentsAccumulatorInitialValue());
return result;
}
return visitor;
}
var listPaths = createVisitor(
function parentInit () {
return "";
},
function parentAcc (parentFullPath, n) {
return parentFullPath + "/" + n.path;
});
But that's not the only abstraction you could take care of:
function createVisitor2(
totalAccumulatorInitialValue,
totalAccumulator,
parentsAccumulatorInitialValue,
parentsAccumulator){
var visitor = function myVisitor (node) {
var total;
function listForNode(n, parentsAcc) {
var thisPath = parentsAccumulator(parentsAcc, n);
total = totalAccumulator(total, thisPath, n);
n.childs && n.childs.forEach(function (child) {
listForNode(child, thisPath);
});
}
total = totalAccumulatorInitialValue();
listForNode(node, parentsAccumulatorInitialValue());
return total;
}
return visitor;
}
var listPaths2 = createVisitor2(
function totalInit() {
return [];
},
function totalAcc(total, thisPath, n){
total.push(thisPath);
return total;
},
function parentInit () {
return "";
},
function parentAcc (parentFullPath, n) {
return parentFullPath + "/" + n.path;
});
Which might be pretty reasonable, but as you can see, I'm already beginning to have trouble finding appropriate names for these variables. In fact, I'd say the name of our function is bad, as doesn't create anything strictly like a visitor object I know of. However, it does work (BTW, I've slightly modified it to handle nulls as well as empty arrays):
> listPaths( { path:"foo",
childs: [{path:"bar", childs: null}, {path:"bob", childs: null}]})
["/foo", "/foo/bar", "/foo/bob"]
It can be modified even further so that your trees don't strictly even have the same structure... but we're already at 4 parameters, which isn't great. It'd be better if your visitor creator were passed a single extensible object with all the necessary methods or values. For instance, maybe (pseudocode):
function createVisitor3(opts) {
//assume we've defined GetDefaults() somewhere local to createVisitor3
// as well as assume that extend is defined somewhere that copies properties
// into a new object like various previously existing libraries do.
opts = extend({}, GetDefaults(), opts);
var totalAccumulatorInitialValue = opts.totalAccumulatorInitialValue;
var totalAccumulator = opts.totalAccumulator;
var parentsAccumulatorInitialValue = opts.parentsAccumulatorInitialValue;
var parentsAccumulator = opts.parentsAccumulator;
var childrenGetter = opts.childrenGetter;
/// etc.
...
}
I am trying to get javascript chaining to work using variable substitution. Not able to get it work. Help appreciated.
var Class = function() {
this.one = function() {
alert('one');
return this;
}
this.two = function() {
alert('two');
return this;
}
if (this instanceof Class) {
return this.Class;
} else {
return new Class();
}
}
var test = new Class();
// this works
test.one().two();
var func = '.one().two()';
// want to make this work
test[func];
there is no function with the name '.one().two()'
Try this,
test['one']()['two']();
Edit:
I believe you are using this for learning purpose only and not on production site.
Highly not recommended. You might want to try an array instead:
var funcs = ['one','two'];
for(var i = 0; i < funcs.length; i++) {
test[funcs[i]]();
}
you can then wrap this into a little function:
function callChain(obj, funcs)
{
for(var i = 0; i < funcs.length; i++) {
obj[funcs[i]]();
}
return obj;
}
Edit: If your chain is stored as a string: .one().two(), you can use the split & string functions to generate the array dynamically.
Well, what you are asking for is far from best practice - so I will give you an unpopular answer - use eval.
If your input is general code as string, you don't really have any other option (specifically when your functions have parameters - .one(1 + 0.5).two(new Date())).
For example, to your Class, add:
this.excecute = function(commands){
eval('this' + commands);
};
And then:
test.excecute('.one().two(4 * 5)');
Working example: http://jsbin.com/ipazaz/1/edit
This emits the warning "eval is evil" (jslint, I think) - but I do not believe functions can be evil.
Even worse, what if you had the string 'one(); two(4 * 5);'?
You can make that work as well, using with:
this.excecute = function(commands){
with(this){
eval(commands);
}
};
This has an extra warning: "Don't use 'with'" - They really have something against us today, don't they?
Working example: http://jsbin.com/ipazaz/2/edit
Thank you all for prompt help. I ended up settling upon Ben Rowe suggestion.
var funcs = ['one','two'];
for(var i = 0; i < funcs.length; i++) {
test[funcs[i]]();
}
It fitted my requirement nicely. Appreciate all for the help. You all are wonderful.
You could add a method to the constructor:
this.chain = function chain(){
if (arguments.length && /\./.test(arguments[0])) {
return chain.apply(this,arguments[0].split('.'));
}
var methods = [].slice.call(arguments),
method = methods.shift();
if(this[method] instanceof Function){
this[method].call(this);
}
if (methods.length){
chain.apply(this,methods);
}
return this;
}
// now you could do something like:
test.chain('one.two.one.two.two');
Or extend Object.prototype
Object.prototype.chain = function chain(){
if (arguments.length && /\./.test(arguments[0])) {
return chain.apply(this,arguments[0].split('.'));
}
var methods = [].slice.call(arguments),
method = methods.shift();
if(this[method] && this[method] instanceof Function){
this[method].call(this);
}
if (methods.length){
chain.apply(this,methods);
}
return this;
};
// usage
({one:function(){console.log('I am one');},
two:function(){console.log('I am two');}})
.chain('one.two.one.one.two.two.two.one.two');
I think a simpler approach is to use javascript's array reduce function.
I needed this for some dynamic jquery stuff I was writing. Once you have your array of chain-able methods you could easily do the following.
var methods = ['next', 'child', 'parent'];
var element = methods.reduce(function(method){
return $(selector)[method]();
});
console.log(element) //works! as all method names in methods array are applied and returned each iteration.
For my case the accepted answer did not work for me it seems to only return the passed obj and not the obj plus it's chained methods.
I have an array of arbitrary values. I Wrote a function that transforms the array to an array of functions that return the original values, so instead of calling a[3], I will call a3.
Here is my code which does not work? code. It gives this error Cannot call method '1' of undefined.
var numToFun = [1, 2, { foo: "bar" }];
var numToFunLength = numToFun.length;
function transform(numTo) {
for (var i = 0; i < numToFunLength; i++) {
(function(num){
numTo.unshift(function() {
return num;
});
}(numTo.pop()))
}
}
var b = transform(numToFun);
console.log(numToFun);
console.log(b[1]());
Others have already answered your question while I was writing mine but I will post it anyway - this may be somewhat easier to follow without all of those popping and unshifting:
function transform(numTo) {
var r = [];
for (var i = 0; i < numTo.length; i++) {
r[i] = (function (v) {
return function() {
return v;
}
}(numTo[i]));
}
return r;
}
(I have also changed the hard-coded length from numToFunLength to numTo.length so the transform() function would work for other inputs than only the global numToFun variable.)
See DEMO.
UPDATE: even more elegant way to do it using the Sugar library:
function transform(array) {
return array.map(function (v) {
return function() {
return v;
}
});
}
I like this syntax because it makes it more explicit that you want to map an array of values to an array of functions that return those values.
See DEMO.
Your function transform does not return anything. That is why b is undefined.
return numTo;
jsFiddle Demo
On the other hand, the array will be passed to the function as a reference anyways, so the original array will be changed. It is not a problem if you don't return anything, just omit the var b = transform(numToFun); line and simply write transform(numToFun).
Your transform function isn't returning anything. So b is undefined
Let's say I have var a = function() { return 1; }. Is it possible to alter a so that a() returns 2? Perhaps by editing a property of the a object, since every function is an object?
Update: Wow, thanks for all the responses. However, I'm afraid I wasn't looking to simply reassign a variable but actually edit an existing function. I am thinking along the lines of how you can combine partial functions in Scala to create a new PartialFunction. I am interested in writing something similar in Javascript and was thinking that the existing function could perhaps be updated, rather than creating an entirely new Function object.
You can do all kinds of fun stuff with javascript, including redefining functions:
let a = function() { return 1; }
console.log(a()); // 1
// keep a reference
let old = a;
// redefine
a = function() {
// call the original function with any arguments specified, storing the result
const originalResult = old.apply(old, arguments);
// add one
return originalResult + 1;
};
console.log(a()); // 2
Voila.
Edit: Updated to show this in a crazier scenario:
let test = new String("123");
console.log(test.toString()); // logs 123
console.log(test.substring(0)); // logs 123
String.prototype.substring = function(){ return "hahanope"; }
console.log(test.substring(0)); // logs hahanope
You can see here that even though "test" is defined first, and we redefine substring() afterwards, the change still applies.
Side note: you really should reconsider your architecture if you're doing this...you're going to confuse the crap out of some poor developer 5 years down the road when s/he's looking at a function definition that's supposed to return 1, but seems to always return 2....
So you want to modify the code of a function directly, in place, and not just reassign a different function to an existing variable.
I hate to say it, but as far as I have been able to figure it out - and I have tried -, it can't be done. True, a function is an object, and as such it has methods and properties which can be tweaked and overwritten on the object itself. Unfortunately, the function body is not one of them. It is not assigned to a public property.
The documentation on MDN lists the properties and methods of the function object. None of them gives us the opportunity to manipulate the function body from the outside.
That's because according to the spec, the function body is stored in the internal [[Code]] property of the function object, which can't be accessed directly.
I used something like this to modify an existing function whose declaration was not accessible to me:
// declare function foo
var foo = function (a) { alert(a); };
// modify function foo
foo = new Function (
"a",
foo.toSource()
.replace("alert(a)", "alert('function modified - ' + a)")
.replace(/^function[^{]+{/i,"") // remove everything up to and including the first curly bracket
.replace(/}[^}]*$/i, "") // remove last curly bracket and everything after<br>
);
Instead of toSource() you could probably use toString() to get a string containing the function's declaration. Some calls to replace() to prepare the string for use with the Function Constructor and to modify the function's source.
let a = function() { return 1; }
console.log(a()) // 1
a = function() { return 2; }
console.log(a()) // 2
technically, you're losing one function definition and replacing it with another.
How about this, without having to redefine the function:
var a = function() { return arguments.callee.value || 1; };
alert(a()); // => 1
a.value = 2;
alert(a()); // => 2
I am sticking to jvenema's solution, in which I don't like the global variable "old". It seems better to keep the old function inside of the new one:
function a() { return 1; }
// redefine
a = (function(){
var _a = a;
return function() {
// You may reuse the original function ...
// Typical case: Conditionally use old/new behaviour
var originalResult = _a.apply(this, arguments);
// ... and modify the logic in any way
return originalResult + 1;
}
})();
a() // --> gives 2
All feasible solutions stick to a "function wrapping approach".
The most reliable amongst them seems to be the one of rplantiko.
Such function wrapping easily can be abstracted away. The concept / pattern itself might be called "Method Modification". Its implementation definitely belongs to Function.prototype. It would be nice to be backed
one day by standard prototypal method modifiers like before, after, around, afterThrowing and afterFinally.
As for the aforementioned example by rplantiko ...
function a () { return 1; }
// redefine
a = (function () {
var _a = a;
return function () {
// You may reuse the original function ...
// Typical case: Conditionally use old/new behaviour
var originalResult = _a.apply(this, arguments);
// ... and modify the logic in any way
return originalResult + 1;
};
})();
console.log('a() ...', a()); // --> gives 2
.as-console-wrapper { min-height: 100%!important; top: 0; }
... and making use of around, the code would transform to ...
function a () { return 1; }
console.log('original a ...', a);
console.log('a() ...', a()); // 1
a = a.around(function (proceed, handler, args) {
return (proceed() + 1);
});
console.log('\nmodified a ...', a);
console.log('a() ...', a()); // 2
.as-console-wrapper { min-height: 100%!important; top: 0; }
<script>
(function(d){function f(a){return typeof a==e&&typeof a.call==e&&typeof a.apply==e}function g(a,b){b=null!=b&&b||null;var c=this;return f(a)&&f(c)&&function(){return a.call(b||null!=this&&this||null,c,a,arguments)}||c}var e=typeof d;Object.defineProperty(d.prototype,"around",{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:g});Object.defineProperty(d,"around",{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:function(a,b,c){return g.call(a,b,c)}})})(Function);
</script>
This is a Clear Example based on a control timepicker eworld.ui
www.eworldui.net
Having a TimePicker eworld.ui where JavaScript is unreachable from outside, you can't find any js related to those controls. So how can you add a onchange event to the timepicker ?
There is a js function called when you Select a time between all the options that the control offer you. This function is: TimePicker_Up_SelectTime
First you have to copy the code inside this function.
Evaluate...quikwatch...TimePicker_Up_SelectTime.toString()
function TimePicker_Up_SelectTime(tbName, lblName, divName, selTime, enableHide, postbackFunc, customFunc) {
document.getElementById(tbName).value = selTime;
if(lblName != '')
document.getElementById(lblName).innerHTML = selTime;
document.getElementById(divName).style.visibility = 'hidden';
if(enableHide)
TimePicker_Up_ShowHideDDL('visible');
if(customFunc != "")
eval(customFunc + "('" + selTime + "', '" + tbName + "');");
eval(postbackFunc + "();");
}
Now
Using the code that you have saved before reassign the same source code but add whatever you want..
TimePicker_Up_SelectTime = function (tbName, lblName, divName, selTime, enableHide, postbackFunc, customFunc) {
document.getElementById(tbName).value = selTime;
if (lblName != '')
document.getElementById(lblName).innerHTML = selTime;
document.getElementById(divName).style.visibility = 'hidden';
if (enableHide)
TimePicker_Up_ShowHideDDL('visible');
if (customFunc != "")
eval(customFunc + "('" + selTime + "', '" + tbName + "');");
eval(postbackFunc + "();");
>>>>>>> My function >>>>> RaiseChange(tbName);
}
I've added My Function to the function so now I can simulate an onchange event when I select a time.
RaiseChange(...) could be whatever you want.
If you're debugging javascript and want to see how changes to the code affects the page, you can use this Firefox extension to view/alter javascripts:
Execute JS firefox extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1729
You can change functions like other objects
var a1 = function(){return 1;}
var b1 = a1;
a1 = function(){
return b1() + 1;
};
console.log(a1()); // return 2
// OR:
function a2(){return 1;}
var b2 = a2;
a2 = function(){
return b2() + 1;
};
console.log(a2()); // return 2
Can you not just define it again later on? When you want the change try just redefining it as:
a = function() { return 2; }
const createFunction = function (defaultRealization) {
let realization = defaultRealization;
const youFunction = function (...args) {
return realization(...args);
};
youFunction.alterRealization = function (fn) {
realization = fn;
};
return youFunction;
}
const myFunction = createFunction(function () { return 1; });
console.log(myFunction()); // 1
myFunction.alterRealization(function () { return 2; });
console.log(myFunction()); // 2