Develop Reference

Convert Calls to undefined function in javascript [duplicate]

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

Javascript - Handle function calls dynamically [duplicate]

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

Why in Javascript the this context changes based on way of calling?

While this issue occurred to me specifically with KnockoutJS, my question is more like a general javascript question.
It is good to understand however that ko.observable() and ko.observableArray() return a method so when assigning a value to them, you need to call the target as method instead of simply assigning a value to them. The code that I'm working with should also support plain objects and arrays, which I why I need to resolve to a method to call to assign a value to the target.
Think of these 2 examples:
Non-working one (this context changed in called method):
// Assigning value to the target object
var target;
// target can be of any of thr following types
target = ko.observableArray(); // knockout observable array (function)
// target = ko.observable(); // knockout observable (function)
// target = {}; // generic object
// target = []; // generic array
//#region resolve method to call
var method;
if (isObservable(target)) {
// if it is a knockout observable array, we need to call the target's push method
// if it is a konckout observable, we need to call the target as a method
method = target.push || target;
} else {
// if target is a generic array, we need to use the array's push prototype
// if target is a generic object, we need to wrap a function to assign the value
method = target.push || function(item){ target = item; };
}
//#endregion
// call resolved method
method(entity);
Working one (this context is fine):
if (isObservable(target)) {
if (target.push) {
target.push(entity);
} else {
target(entity);
};
} else {
if (target.push) {
target.push(entity);
} else {
target = entity;
};
}
Now, to the actual question:
In the first approach, later in the execution chain when using a knockout observable knockout refers to this context within itself, trying to access the observable itself (namely this.t() in case someone is wondering). In this particular case due to the way of callin, this has changed to window object instead of pointing to the original observable.
In the latter case, knockout's this context is just normal.
Can any of you javascript gurus tell me how on earth my way of calling can change the 'this' context of the function being called?
Ok, I know someone wants a fiddle so here goes :)
Method 1 (Uncaught TypeError: Object [object global] has no method 'peek')
Method 2 (Works fine)
P.S. I'm not trying to fix the code, I'm trying to understand why my code changes the this context.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the quick answers! I must say I hate it when I don't know why (and especially how) something is happening. From your answers I fiddled up this quick fiddle to repro the situation and I think I got it now :)
// So having an object like Foo
function Foo() {
this.dirThis = function () {
console.dir(this);
};
};
// Instantiating a new Foo
var foo = new Foo();
// Foo.dirThis() has it's original context
foo.dirThis(); // First log in console (Foo)
// The calling code is in Window context
console.dir(this); // Second log in console (Window)
// Passing a reference to the target function from another context
// changes the target function's context
var anotherFoo = foo.dirThis;
// So, when being called through anotherFoo,
// Window object gets logged
// instead of Foo's original context
anotherFoo(); // 3rd log
// So, to elaborate, if I create a type AnotherFoo
function AnotherFoo(dirThis){
this.dirThis = dirThis;
}
// And and instantiate it
var newFoo = new AnotherFoo(foo.dirThis);
newFoo.dirThis(); // Should dir AnotherFoo (4th in log)

If you're after a way to choose the 'this' that will get used at the time of call,
you should use bind, that's exactly done for that.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
So if SomeObject has a push method, then storing it like this won't work :
var thePushMethod = someObject.push;
since you loose the context of the function when writing this.
Now if you do :
var thePushMethod = someObject.push.bind(someObject);
the context is now stored inside thePushMethod, that you just call with
thePushMethod();
Notice that you can bind also the arguments, so for instance you might write :
var pushOneLater = someObject.push.bind(someObject, 1 );
// then, later :
pushOneLater(); // will push one into someObject

Consider this example,
function Person () {
this.fname = "Welcome";
this.myFunc = function() {
return this.fname;
}
};
var a = new Person();
console.log(a.myFunc());
var b = a.myFunc;
console.log(b());
Output
Welcome
undefined
When you make a call to a.myFunc(), the current object (this) is set as a. So, the first example works fine.
But in the second case, var b = a.myFunc; you are getting only the reference to the function and when you are calling it, you are not invoking on any specific object, so the window object is assigned. Thats why it prints undefined.
To fix this problem, you can explicitly pass the this argument with call function, like this
console.log(b.call(a));
So, for your case, you might have to do this
method.call(target, entity);
Check the fixed fiddle

Inheritance and problems with the "this" keyword

I'm building a fairly complex web app that begins with a main menu where the user makes his initial selections. This is the first time I've tried a true OOP approach using inheritance in JavaScript and I've run into my first problem with the "this" keyword not referring to what I expect it to. I'm guessing that it's the result of a broader problem with my OOP/inheritance approach, so I would appreciate an answer that not only tells me how to solve this individual issue, but also provides deeper feedback and advice on my general approach.
I'm only going to post the JS code because I don't think the HTML is relevant, but I can certainly post that as well if necessary.
The following code defines the main class Select. It then creates a subclass of Select called SelectNum (look towards the end of the code). In SelectNum, I'm trying to override the mouseover method of Select, but not entirely -- I want to first call the super's (Select's) method, and then run some additional code. But when this subclass's mouseover method runs, I immediately get the following error:
"Uncaught TypeError: Cannot call method 'stop' of undefined"
Basically, this.shine is undefined.
To start with, I'm using the following code from O'Reilly's JavaScript: The Definitive Guide:
function inherit(p) {
if (Object.create){ // If Object.create() is defined...
return Object.create(p); // then just use it.
}
function f() {}; // Define a dummy constructor function.
f.prototype = p; // Set its prototype property to p.
return new f(); // Use f() to create an "heir" of p.
}
And my code:
Select = function(el){
return this.init(el);
}
Select.prototype = {
init: function(el){
var that = this;
this.el = el;
this.shine = el.children('.selectShine');
el.hover(function(){
that.mouseover();
},function(){
that.mouseout();
});
return this;
},
mouseover: function(){
this.shine.stop().animate({opacity:.35},200);
},
mouseout: function(){
var that = this;
this.shine.stop().animate({opacity:.25},200);
}
}
//Sub-classes
SelectNum = function(el){
this.init(el);
this.sup = inherit(Select.prototype); //allows access to super's original methods even when overwritten in this subclass
return this;
}
SelectNum.prototype = inherit(Select.prototype);
SelectNum.prototype.mouseover = function(){
this.sup.mouseover(); //call super's method... but this breaks down
//do some other stuff
}
EDIT
The response from Raynos worked. this.sup.mouseover() no longer threw the error, and the correct code was run. However, I actually need to create a SelectNum subclass called SelectLevel. Unlike SelectNum that overrides its superclass' mouseover() method, SelectLevel does NOT need to override SelectNum's mouseover() method:
SelectLevel = function(el){
this.init(el);
this.sup = inherit(SelectNum.prototype); //allows access to super's original methods even when overwritten in this subclass
for(var k in this.sup){
this.sup[k] = this.sup[k].bind(this);
}
}
SelectLevel.prototype = inherit(SelectNum.prototype);
With this code, the mouseover() method simply gets called continuously. I believe that's because this is now bound to the SelectLevel object, so this.sup in the line this.sup.mouseover() in SelectNum always refers to SelectNum, so it just keeps calling itself.
If I remove the this.sup[k] = this.sup[k].bind(this); binding in SelectLevel, then I get the error Uncaught TypeError: Cannot call method 'mouseover' of undefined. It appears that this.sup.mouseover() gets called continuously, calling the mouseover method on each object in the prototype chain. When it gets up to Object, that's when this error gets thrown because, of course, Object doesn't have a sup property.
It seems like I can solve this by removing the this.sup[k] = this.sup[k].bind(this); binding in SelectLevel, and then wrapping the this.sup.mouseover() in an if statement that checks first for the sup property before calling the mouseover() method on it: i.e. if(this.sup !== undefined), but this really just doesn't feel right.
Ultimately, I think I'm missing something fundamental about how to subclass in JavaScript. While solutions to these particular issues do shed some light on how prototypal inheritance works in JS, I really think I need a better understanding on a broader level.

this.sup.mouseover();
calls the .mouseover method on the object this.sup. What you want is
this.sup.mouseover.call(this)
You don't want to call it on this.sup you want to call it on this.
If that's a pain in the ass then you can do the following in your constructor
this.sup = inherit(Select.prototype);
for (var k in this.sup) {
if (typeof this.sup[k] === "function") {
this.sup[k] = this.sup[k].bind(this);
}
}
That basically means override every method with the same function but hard bind the value of this to what you expect/want.

Is there a way to catch an attempt to access a non existant property or method?

For instance this code:
function stuff() {
this.onlyMethod = function () {
return something;
}
}
// some error is thrown
stuff().nonExistant();
Is there a way to do something like PHP's __call as a fallback from inside the object?
function stuff() {
this.onlyMethod = function () {
return something;
}
// "catcher" function
this.__call__ = function (name, params) {
alert(name + " can't be called.");
}
}
// would then raise the alert "nonExistant can't be called".
stuff().nonExistant();
Maybe I'll explain a bit more what I'm doing.
The object contains another object, which has methods that should be accessible directly through this object. But those methods are different for each object, so I can't just route them, i need to be able to call them dynamically.
I know I could just make the object inside it a property of the main object stuff.obj.existant(), but I'm just wondering if I could avoid it, since the main object is sort of a wrapper that just adds some functionality temporarily (and makes it easier to access the object at the same time).

Well, it seems that with harmony (ES6), there will be a way, and it's more complicated compared to the way other programing languages do it. Basically, it involves using the Proxy built-in object to create a wrapper on the object, and modify the way default behavior its implemented on it:
obj = new Proxy({},
{ get : function(target, prop)
{
if(target[prop] === undefined)
return function() {
console.log('an otherwise undefined function!!');
};
else
return target[prop];
}
});
obj.f() ///'an otherwise undefined function!!'
obj.l = function() {console.log(45);};
obj.l(); ///45
The Proxy will forward all methods not handled by handlers into the normal object. So it will be like if it wasn't there, and from proxy you can modify the target. There are also more handlers, even some to modify the prototype getting, and setters for any property access yes!.
As you would imagine, this isn't supported in all browsers right now, but in Firefox you can play with the Proxy interface quite easy, just go to the MDN docs
It would make me happier if the managed to add some syntactic sugar on this, but anyway, its nice to have this kind of power in an already powerful language. Have a nice day! :)
PD: I didn't copy rosettacode js entry, I updated it.

There is a way to define a generic handler for calls on non-existant methods, but it is non-standard. Checkout the noSuchMethod for Firefox. Will let you route calls to undefined methods dynamically. Seems like v8 is also getting support for it.
To use it, define this method on any object:
var a = {};
a.__noSuchMethod__ = function(name, args) {
console.log("method %s does not exist", name);
};
a.doSomething(); // logs "method doSomething does not exist"
However, if you want a cross-browser method, then simple try-catch blocks if the way to go:
try {
a.doSomething();
}
catch(e) {
// do something
}
If you don't want to write try-catch throughout the code, then you could add a wrapper to the main object through which all function calls are routed.
function main() {
this.call = function(name, args) {
if(this[name] && typeof this[name] == 'function') {
this[name].call(args);
}
else {
// handle non-existant method
}
},
this.a = function() {
alert("a");
}
}
var object = new main();
object.call('a') // alerts "a"
object.call('garbage') // goes into error-handling code

It seems that you know your way around JS.
Unfortunately, I don't know of such feature in the language, and am pretty sure that it does not exist. Your best option, in my opinion is either using a uniform interface and extend it, or extend the prototypes from which your objects inherit (then you can use instanceof before going forward with the method call) or use the somewhat cumbersome '&&' operator in order to avoid the access of nonexistent properties/methods:
obj.methodName && obj.methodName(art1,arg2,...);
You can also extend the Object prototype with Anurag's suggestion ('call').

You can also check if the method exists.
if(a['your_method_that_doesnt_exist']===undefined){
//method doesn't exist
}