Develop Reference

Making private instance variable accessible to prototype methods enclosed in anonymous function

Background
I decided I would practice by making a simple calculator app in JS. The first step was to implement a stack class. I ran into some problems however in achieving data encapsulation with the revealing prototype pattern (?). Here's how it looks right now:
Stack "class":
var Stack = (function () {
var Stack = function() {
this.arr = []; // accessible to prototype methods but also to public
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype; // inherits from Object
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
this.arr.push(x);
};
Stack.prototype.pop = function() {
return this.arr.length ? (this.arr.splice(this.arr.length - 1, 1))[0] : null;
};
Stack.prototype.size = function() {
return this.arr.length;
};
Stack.prototype.empty = function() {
return this.arr.length === 0;
};
return Stack;
})();
Test code:
var s1 = new Stack();
var s2 = new Stack();
for(var j = 1, k = 2; j < 10, k < 11; j++, k++) {
s1.push(3*j);
s2.push(4*k);
}
console.log("s1:");
while(!s1.empty()) console.log(s1.pop());
console.log("s2:");
while(!s2.empty()) console.log(s2.pop());
The Problem
The only problem is that the arr is accessible. I would like to hide the arr variable somehow.
Attempts at a Solution
My first idea was to make it a private variable like Stack:
var Stack = (function () {
var arr = []; // private, but shared by all instances
var Stack = function() { };
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype;
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
arr.push(x);
};
// etc.
})();
But of course this approach doesn't work, because then the arr variable is shared by every instance. So it's a good way of making a private class variable, but not a private instance variable.
The second way I thought of (which is really crazy and definitely not good for readability) is to use a random number to restrict access to the array variable, almost like a password:
var Stack = (function() {
var pass = String(Math.floor(Math.pow(10, 15 * Math.random()));
var arrKey = "arr" + pass;
var Stack = function() {
this[arrKey] = []; // private instance and accessible to prototypes, but too dirty
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype;
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
this[arrKey].push(x);
};
// etc.
})();
This solution is... amusing. But obviously not what I want to do.
The last idea, which is what Crockford does, allows me to create a private instance member, but there's no way I can tell to make this visible to the public prototype methods I'm defining.
var Stack = (function() {
var Stack = function() {
var arr = []; // private instance member but not accessible to public methods
this.push = function(x) { arr.push(x); }; // see note [1]
}
})();
[1] This is almost there, but I don't want to have the function definitions within the var Stack = function() {...} because then they get recreated every time that an instance is created. A smart JS compiler will realize that they don't depend on any conditionals and cache the function code rather than recreating this.push over and over, but I'd rather not depend on speculative caching if I can avoid it.
The Question
Is there a way to create a private instance member which is accessible to the prototype methods? By somehow utilizing the 'bubble of influence' created by the enclosing anonymous function?

You could use a factory function that creates an instance for you:
function createStack() {
var arr = [];
function Stack() {
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype; // inherits from Object
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
arr.push(x);
};
Stack.prototype.pop = function() {
return arr.length ? (this.arr.splice(this.arr.length - 1, 1))[0] : null;
};
Stack.prototype.size = function() {
return arr.length;
};
Stack.prototype.empty = function() {
return arr.length === 0;
};
return new Stack();
}
You would be defining the class on every execution of the factory function, but you could get around this by changing this to define most of Stack outside the constructor function, like the parts that dont use arr could be further up the prototype chain. Personally I use Object.create instead of prototype now and I almost always use factory functions to make instances of these types of objects.
Another thing you could do is maintain a counter that keeps track of the instance and holds on to an array of arrays.
var Stack = (function() {
var data = [];
var Stack = function() {
this.id = data.length;
data[this.id] = [];
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype;
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
data[this.id].push(x);
};
// etc.
}());
Now you have the hidden data multi dimensional array, and every instance just maintains its index in that array. You have to be careful to manage the memory now though, so that when your instance isn't being used anymore you remove what's in that array. I don't recommend doing it this way unless you are disposing your data carefully.

The short answer here, is that you can't have all things, without sacrificing a little.
A Stack feels like a struct of some kind, or at very least, a data-type which should have either a form of peek or read-access, into the array.
Whether the array is extended or not, is of course up to you and your interpretation...
...but my point is that for low-level, simple things like this, your solution is one of two things:
function Stack () {
this.arr = [];
this.push = function (item) { this.arr.push(item); }
// etc
}
or
function Stack () {
var arr = [];
var stack = this;
extend(stack, {
_add : function (item) { arr.push(item); },
_read : function (i) { return arr[i || arr.length - 1]; },
_remove : function () { return arr.pop(); },
_clear : function () { arr = []; }
});
}
extend(Stack.prototype, {
push : function (item) { this._add(item); },
pop : function () { return this._remove(); }
// ...
});
extend here is just a simple function that you can write, to copy the key->val of objects, onto the first object (basically, so I don't have to keep typing this. or Class.prototype..
There are, of course, dozens of ways of writing these, which will all achieve basically the same thing, with modified styles.
And here's the rub; unless you do use a global registry, where each instance is given its own unique Symbol (or unique-id) at construction time, which it then uses to register an array... ...which of course, means that the key then needs to be publicly accessible (or have a public accessor -- same thing), you're either writing instance-based methods, instance-based accessors with prototyped methods, or you're putting everything you need in the public scope.
In the future, you will be able to do things like this:
var Stack = (function () {
var registry = new WeakMap();
function Stack () {
var stack = this,
arr = [];
registry[stack] = arr;
}
extend(Stack.prototype, {
push (item) { registry[this].push(item); }
pop () { return registry[this].pop(); }
});
return Stack;
}());
Nearly all bleeding-edge browsers support this, currently (minus the shorthand for methods).
But there are ES6 -> ES5 compilers out there (Traceur, for instance).
I don't think WeakMaps are supported in Traceur, as an ES5 implementation would require a lot of hoops, or a working Proxy, but a Map would work (assuming that you handled GC yourself).
This lends me to say that from a pragmatic standpoint, for a class as small as Stack you might as well just give each instance its own methods, if you really want to keep the array internal.
For other harmless, tiny, low-level classes, hiding data might be pointless, so all of it could be public.
For larger classes, or high-level classes, having accessors on instances with prototyped methods stays relatively clean; especially if you're using DI to feed in lower-level functionality, and the instance accessors are just bridging from the interface of the dependency, into the shape you need them to be, for your own interface.

A real solution
EDIT: It turns out this solution is basically the same as the one described here, first posted by HMR in a comment to my question above. So definitely not new, but it works well.
var Stack = (function Stack() {
var key = {};
var Stack = function() {
var privateInstanceVars = {arr: []};
this.getPrivateInstanceVars = function(k) {
return k === key ? privateInstanceVars : undefined;
};
};
Stack.prototype.push = function(el) {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
privates.arr.push(el);
};
Stack.prototype.pop = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.length ? privates.arr.splice(privates.arr.length - 1, 1)[0] : null;
};
Stack.prototype.empty = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.length === 0;
};
Stack.prototype.size = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.length;
};
Stack.prototype.toString = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.toString();
};
Stack.prototype.print = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
console.log(privates.arr);
}
return Stack;
}());
// TEST
// works - they ARE separate now
var s1 = new Stack();
var s2 = new Stack();
s1.push("s1a");
s1.push("s1b");
s2.push("s2a");
s2.push("s2b");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b"]
s2.print(); // ["s2a", "s2b"]
// works!
Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, "s1c");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b", "s1c"]
// extending the Stack
var LimitedStack = function(maxSize) {
Stack.apply(this, arguments);
this.maxSize = maxSize;
}
LimitedStack.prototype = new Stack();
LimitedStack.prototype.constructor = LimitedStack;
LimitedStack.prototype.push = function() {
if(this.size() < this.maxSize) {
Stack.prototype.push.apply(this, arguments);
} else {
console.log("Maximum size of " + this.maxSize + " reached; cannot push.");
}
// note that the private variable arr is not directly accessible
// to extending prototypes
// this.getArr(key) // !! this will fail (key not defined)
};
var limstack = new LimitedStack(3);
limstack.push(1);
limstack.push(2);
limstack.push(3);
limstack.push(4); // Maximum size of 3 reached; cannot push
limstack.print(); // [1, 2, 3]
Cons: basically none, other than remembering a little extra code
Original solution
(The first method originally posted was substantially different from what is below, but through some careless editing I seem to have lost it. It didn't work as well anyway, so no real harm done.)
Here a new object/prototype is created with every instantiation, but it borrows much of the code from the static privilegedInstanceMethods. What still fails is the ability to do Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, val), but now that the prototype is being set on the object, I think we're getting closer.
var Stack = (function() {
var privilegedInstanceMethods = {
push: function(x) {
this.arr.push(x);
},
pop: function() {
return this.arr.length ? this.arr.splice(this.arr.length - 1, 1)[0] : null;
},
size: function() {
return this.arr.length;
},
empty: function() {
return this.arr.length === 0;
},
print: function() {
console.log(this.arr);
},
};
var Stack_1 = function() {
var Stack_2 = function() {
var privateInstanceMembers = {arr: []};
for (var k in privilegedInstanceMethods) {
if (privilegedInstanceMethods.hasOwnProperty(k)) {
// this essentially recreates the class each time an object is created,
// but without recreating the majority of the function code
Stack_2.prototype[k] = privilegedInstanceMethods[k].bind(privateInstanceMembers);
}
}
};
return new Stack_2(); // this is key
};
// give Stack.prototype access to the methods as well.
for(var k in privilegedInstanceMethods) {
if(privilegedInstanceMethods.hasOwnProperty(k)) {
Stack_1.prototype[k] = (function(k2) {
return function() {
this[k2].apply(this, arguments);
};
}(k)); // necessary to prevent k from being same in all
}
}
return Stack_1;
}());
Test:
// works - they ARE separate now
var s1 = new Stack();
var s2 = new Stack();
s1.push("s1a");
s1.push("s1b");
s2.push("s2a");
s2.push("s2b");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b"]
s2.print(); // ["s2a", "s2b"]
// works!
Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, "s1c");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b", "s1c"]
Pros:
this.arr is not directly accessible
method code is only defined once, not per instance
s1.push(x) works and so does Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, x)
Cons:
The bind call creates four new wrapper functions on every instantiation (but the code is much smaller than creating the internal push/pop/empty/size functions every time).
The code is a little complicated

Simulating Array Functionality

Good day! I have this code:
function MyArray() {}
MyArray.prototype.length = 0;
(function() {
var methods = ['push', 'pop', 'shift', 'unshift',
'slice', 'splice', 'join'];
for (var i = 0; i < methods.length; i++) (function(name) {
MyArray.prototype[ name ] = function() {
return Array.prototype[ name ].apply(this, arguments);
};
})(methods[i]);
})();
I need explanation. I understood that "methods" is array of real methods, which just "exported" to our new class. But, what is this: MyArray.prototype.length = 0; ? Author create new prototype property and assign it zero. And later use this new property!
var mine = new MyArray();
mine.push(1, 2, 3);
assert(mine.length == 3 ...
.....
How it is work? "length" have not instantiation in code above!

Its getting initialized at zero so that if you never call any of its functions, it will return zero (like a real array) and not undefined. Also it needs to start at zero so that the methods update it correctly. in your example, length its 3 because the push method did so.

You can't really subclass Array http://perfectionkills.com/how-ecmascript-5-still-does-not-allow-to-subclass-an-array/
So if you create an instance of MyArray you can't do: MyArr[0]=...
You can wrap an array inside MyArray and take advantage of the Array functions:
var MyArray=function() {
this.arr=[];
[].push.apply(this.arr,arguments);
//following doesn't work in older browsers
Object.defineProperty(this,"length",{
get:function(){return this.arr.length;},
enumerable:true,
configurable:true
});
}
MyArray.prototype.valueOf=function(){return this.arr;};
(function() {
var methods = ['push', 'pop', 'shift', 'unshift',
'slice', 'splice', 'join'],i=methods.length
while(--i!==-1){
;(function(name) {
MyArray.prototype[ name ] = function() {
console.log(arguments);
return Array.prototype[ name ].apply(this.arr, arguments);
};
}(methods[i]));
}
}());
var mArr1=new MyArray(1,2,3);
console.log(mArr1.slice(0,1));
//you cannot do this: myArr1[0]=22;

Return a dynamically generated function without eval()

I'm trying to dynamically create function when iterating over an array and
I need the arguments in the array to be set according to the value of the current index.
For example:
var array = ['apple','orange','banana'];
I need to have these three functions:
function() { return 'apple' };
function() { return 'orange' };
function() { return 'banana' };
I tried to return a constructed function from an external one but the expression in it won't evaluate and I end up with three of these:
function() { return array[i] };
Is there a way to dynamically create such a function without using eval()?

You can create the functions like so:
var funcs = {};
for (var i=0;i<array.length;i++)
{
funcs[array[i]] = (function(val)
{
return function()
{
return val;
};
}(array[i]));
}
which can be called like so:
funcs.apple();// returns "apple"
But also, depending on the value of some var:
var someVar = 'banana';
if (funcs.hasOwnProperty(someVar))
{
funcs[someVar]();
}
If what you're after is a single (possibly global) function, that depending on, for example, the URI, you just have to write this:
var myFunc = (function()
{
var retVal = location.mathname.match(/^\/([^\/]+)/)[1];
return function()
{
return retVal;
};
}());
Note that the function won't be hoisted, as it is an expression.
I've written a lot about IIFE's (Immediatly Invoked Function Expressions), how they work and why, so best check my answer here if you don't fully understand these code snippets. It's quite easy once you get the logic, and you'll soon find yourself writing code like this all the time... tey really are incredibly powerful things, closures are!

This is what I would do:
function constant(value) {
return function () {
return value;
};
}
var array = ["apple", "orange", "banana"];
var fruit = array.map(constant);
alert(fruit[0]()); // apple
alert(fruit[1]()); // orange
alert(fruit[2]()); // banana
Simple. See the demo: http://jsfiddle.net/tfS2F/
You can also use the initial array as a key as follows:
alert(fruit[array.indexOf("orange")]()); // orange
See the demo: http://jsfiddle.net/tfS2F/1/

This one will not work, i leave it to illustrate the infamous loop problem:
The best way to achieve this would be to create a context var before creating the function, hope this illustrates it http://jsfiddle.net/jkymq/
var array = ['apple','orange','banana'];
var methods = {}
for (pos = 0 ; pos < array.length; pos ++){
var target = array[pos];
var newMethod = function(){alert (target);}
methods[target] = newMethod;
}
for (foo in methods){
methods[foo]();
}

jquery using objects as filters

Is there any way to have DOM elements selectable through objects?
For example I want to be able to associate objects to DOM elements like so:
var obj = { a: 1, b:2 };
$('a').click(function() { this.selectThing = obj });
And later on...
$.something(obj);
Or even better:
$('a|selectThing?=', obj);
Something like that. You can see that I want to associate an object to a DOM element in such a way that I can grab the element with the object.
I know this can be done with the filter() method, my question is if there's a more elegant way that doesn't use filter() to do this.
EDIT:
To clarify, I want to be able to use an object kind of like a selector, so I can do something similar to this $(obj) obviously that won't work, but you get the idea (I hope)
EDIT #2:
I want to be able to do something like this:
var obj = { prop: 'prop' };
$('a').bindTo(obj);
$.retreive(obj) // should equal $('a')
I don't want it to alter obj in any way though (obj should still be {prop: 'prop'} only).

demo
var $div1 = $('.box1');
var $div2 = $('.box2');
var obj = { a: $div1, b: $div2 };
obj.a.css({background:'red'});
Or the short way: var obj = { a: $('.box1'), b: $('.box2') };
demo jsBin 2
var obj = $('.box1, .box2'); // store objects
obj.css({background:'red'}); // access collection

You're looking for $.data. This method associates any JavaScript object or primitive with a DOM element. Under the hood, it's not adding the data as an expando to the DOM element or anything--instead, jQuery maintains its own object cache of DOM elements and data hashes. But that's under the hood; the point is, I think it's exactly what you're looking for.
$('#example').data('foo', { bar: 'quux' }); // returns the jquery object containing '#example', like most jQuery methods
Then, later:
console.log($('#example').data('foo')); // returns {bar: 'quux'}

I dont think this is easily achievable. Let me clarify:
To achieve what you want you would require a hashmap that allows objects in the position of keys. JavaScript does not (yet) support objects as keys in hashmaps though. So, for example, the following does not work:
var key = {value: 'key'};
var data {value: 'data'};
var map = {};
map[key] = data;
There are other solutions to achieve this in current javascript implementations, eg. a double lookup:
var key = {value: 'key'};
var data {value: 'data'};
var map = { keys: [], data: [], get: function (key) {
var k = this.keys.indexOf(key);
if (k >= 0) {
return this.data[k];
} else return undefined;
}, set: function (key, val) {
var k = this.keys.indexOf(key);
if (k < 0) {
k = this.keys.push(k) - 1;
}
this.data[k] = val;
} };
map.set(key, data);
map.get(key).value;
This implementation however is of a terrible performance. There is a proposal for a so called WeakMap in JavaScript Harmony. Firefox I believe is currently the only browser implementing them, though. Since the feature required is not widely available and workarounds are of poor performance I would recommend trying to figure out a different way of achieving what you are trying to.

Extend jQuery with three methods:
jQuery.bindObj(data)
jQuery.unbindObj(data)
$.retrieve(data)
Your code looks like:
$('a').bindObj({blorg: 'shmorg'});
console.log($.retrieve({blorg: 'shmorg'})); // logs live result of $('a');
Full source: http://jsfiddle.net/nUUSV/6/.
The trick to this solution is storing the selectors/identifiers based to the jQuery constructor in one array, and the objects bound to those selectors/identifiers in another array, then using $.inArray to get the index of the object upon retrieval and using that index to grab the bound jQuery collection.

As I understand, you're looking for some sugar way to run multiple named searches on the DOM and have results filtered in a namespace object.
If so, I guess the following jquery extension might be helpfull to you:
$.fn.seek = function (selectors) {
var container = this,
found = {};
$.each(selectors, function (name) {
if ($.isPlainObject(selectors[name])) {
found[name] = $(container).seek(selectors[name]);
}
else if ($.type(selectors[name]) === 'string') {
found[name] = $(container).find(selectors[name]);
}
});
return found;
}
And here's the example of how the above extension might be applicable to your cases:
var res = $('body').seek({
links: 'a',
headers: 'h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6'
});
$(res.links).css({ color: 'green' });
$(res.headers).css({ color: 'red' });
I hope this helps you.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for. Perhaps you could write a custom selector based on the jquery selector, which handles objects with a selector-property the way you like. A selectable object would look like
var objSelector = {'selector' : '#select-me', 'a' : 'somestring', 'b' : 1243};
So you are free to use it like any other object, but you have to add the selector property. Than you add your custom selector:
$$ = (function($) {
return function(el, tag) {
if (typeof el === 'object' && el.selector !== undefined) {
return $(el.selector);
}
return $(el);
}
}($));
Now you can do things like
$$(objSelector).css({'border':'1px solid red'});
See an implementation on http://jsfiddle.net/JXcnJ/

If I understood correctly then, I think you need to define a property and say enumerable as false. See below,
Note: Below is just an example to demonstrate and not exactly meant to do such stuff,
DEMO
$(function() {
$.fn.bindTo = function(o) {
var _that = this;
Object.defineProperty(o, 'myFx', {
value: function() { return $(_that); },
writable: true,
enumerable: false,
configurable: true
});
}
$.retrieve = function(obj) {
return obj.myFx();
}
var obj = {
prop: 'prop'
};
$('#test').bindTo(obj);
$($.retrieve(obj)).html('Test');
//below is for proof
for (i in obj) {
alert(obj[i]);
}
});
Reference: http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in-javascript/

Dynamically firing a named-spaced method via JavaScript

I have multiple external JavaScripts that are namespaced based on the section of the site. I am trying to dynamically fire methods, but am unable to get the methods to fire. Can anyone tell me what the problem is?
If I add this, the method fires:
Namespace.Something.init()
But when I try to do it like this, nothing happens (note: namespace equals Namespace.Something and functionname equals init):
namespace[functionname]();

Unless you want to use eval which I am sure you don't the following works.
This assumes that all your methods are the same level deep i.e namespace.somename.somemethod
var Namespace = {
Something: {
init: function() {
console.log('init called');
}
}
};
Namespace.Something.init();
var namespace = "Namespace";
var section = "Something";
var method = "init";
this[namespace][section][method]();
as Namespace is part of the global scope you can access it from this[namespace]

I asked the same question a few weeks ago, though I think I phrased it slightly differently. See this.
Basically, you need to parse the string functionname one piece at a time.
By the way, using the walk_path code from that answer, here's a general purpose function I wrote to run a function from a string including arguments.
// run an arbitrary function from a string. Will attempt to parse the args from parenthesis, if none found, will
// use additional arguments passed to this function.
utils.runFunction = function (funcdef) {
var argPos = funcdef.indexOf('(');
var endArgPos = -1;
var args = undefined;
var func = funcdef;
if (argPos > 0) {
endArgPos = funcdef.indexOf(')', argPos);
if (endArgPos > 0) {
args = funcdef.substring(argPos + 1, endArgPos).split(',');
func = funcdef.substring(0, argPos - 1);
}
} else {
args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
}
var func = walk_path(window, func);
return !args ? func() : func.apply(null, args);
};

var methodName = 'Namespace.Something.init';
var methodParts = methodName.split('.');
var method = this;
for (var i=0; i < methodParts.length; i++) {
method = method[methodParts[i]];
};
method(the arguments you want);