I was reading some posts about closures and saw this everywhere, but there is no clear explanation how it works - everytime I was just told to use it...:
// Create a new anonymous function, to use as a wrapper
(function(){
// The variable that would, normally, be global
var msg = "Thanks for visiting!";
// Binding a new function to a global object
window.onunload = function(){
// Which uses the 'hidden' variable
alert( msg );
};
// Close off the anonymous function and execute it
})();
Ok I see that we will create new anonymous function and then execute it. So after that this simple code should work (and it does):
(function (msg){alert(msg)})('SO');
My question is what kind of magic happens here? I thought that when I wrote:
(function (msg){alert(msg)})
then a new unnamed function would be created like function ""(msg) ...
but then why doesn't this work?
(function (msg){alert(msg)});
('SO');
Why does it need to be in the same line?
Could you please point me some posts or give me an explanation?
Drop the semicolon after the function definition.
(function (msg){alert(msg)})
('SO');
Above should work.
DEMO Page: https://jsfiddle.net/e7ooeq6m/
I have discussed this kind of pattern in this post:
jQuery and $ questions
EDIT:
If you look at ECMA script specification, there are 3 ways you can define a function. (Page 98, Section 13 Function Definition)
1. Using Function constructor
var sum = new Function('a','b', 'return a + b;');
alert(sum(10, 20)); //alerts 30
2. Using Function declaration.
function sum(a, b)
{
return a + b;
}
alert(sum(10, 10)); //Alerts 20;
3. Function Expression
var sum = function(a, b) { return a + b; }
alert(sum(5, 5)); // alerts 10
So you may ask, what's the difference between declaration and expression?
From ECMA Script specification:
FunctionDeclaration :
function Identifier ( FormalParameterListopt ){ FunctionBody
}
FunctionExpression :
function Identifieropt ( FormalParameterListopt ){ FunctionBody
}
If you notice, 'identifier' is optional for function expression. And when you don't give an identifier, you create an anonymous function. It doesn't mean that you can't specify an identifier.
This means following is valid.
var sum = function mySum(a, b) { return a + b; }
Important point to note is that you can use 'mySum' only inside the mySum function body, not outside. See following example:
var test1 = function test2() { alert(typeof test2); }
alert(typeof(test2)); //alerts 'undefined', surprise!
test1(); //alerts 'function' because test2 is a function.
Live Demo
Compare this to
function test1() { alert(typeof test1) };
alert(typeof test1); //alerts 'function'
test1(); //alerts 'function'
Armed with this knowledge, let's try to analyze your code.
When you have code like,
function(msg) { alert(msg); }
You created a function expression. And you can execute this function expression by wrapping it inside parenthesis.
(function(msg) { alert(msg); })('SO'); //alerts SO.
It's called a self-invoked function.
What you are doing when you call (function(){}) is returning a function object. When you append () to it, it is invoked and anything in the body is executed. The ; denotes the end of the statement, that's why the 2nd invocation fails.
One thing I found confusing is that the "()" are grouping operators.
Here is your basic declared function.
Ex. 1:
var message = 'SO';
function foo(msg) {
alert(msg);
}
foo(message);
Functions are objects, and can be grouped. So let's throw parens around the function.
Ex. 2:
var message = 'SO';
function foo(msg) { //declares foo
alert(msg);
}
(foo)(message); // calls foo
Now instead of declaring and right-away calling the same function, we can use basic substitution to declare it as we call it.
Ex. 3.
var message = 'SO';
(function foo(msg) {
alert(msg);
})(message); // declares & calls foo
Finally, we don't have a need for that extra foo because we're not using the name to call it! Functions can be anonymous.
Ex. 4.
var message = 'SO';
(function (msg) { // remove unnecessary reference to foo
alert(msg);
})(message);
To answer your question, refer back to Example 2. Your first line declares some nameless function and groups it, but does not call it. The second line groups a string. Both do nothing. (Vincent's first example.)
(function (msg){alert(msg)});
('SO'); // nothing.
(foo);
(msg); //Still nothing.
But
(foo)
(msg); //works
An anonymous function is not a function with the name "". It is simply a function without a name.
Like any other value in JavaScript, a function does not need a name to be created. Though it is far more useful to actually bind it to a name just like any other value.
But like any other value, you sometimes want to use it without binding it to a name. That's the self-invoking pattern.
Here is a function and a number, not bound, they do nothing and can never be used:
function(){ alert("plop"); }
2;
So we have to store them in a variable to be able to use them, just like any other value:
var f = function(){ alert("plop"); }
var n = 2;
You can also use syntatic sugar to bind the function to a variable:
function f(){ alert("plop"); }
var n = 2;
But if naming them is not required and would lead to more confusion and less readability, you could just use them right away.
(function(){ alert("plop"); })(); // will display "plop"
alert(2 + 3); // will display 5
Here, my function and my numbers are not bound to a variable, but they can still be used.
Said like this, it looks like self-invoking function have no real value. But you have to keep in mind that JavaScript scope delimiter is the function and not the block ({}).
So a self-invoking function actually has the same meaning as a C++, C# or Java block. Which means that variable created inside will not "leak" outside the scope. This is very useful in JavaScript in order not to pollute the global scope.
It's just how JavaScript works. You can declare a named function:
function foo(msg){
alert(msg);
}
And call it:
foo("Hi!");
Or, you can declare an anonymous function:
var foo = function (msg) {
alert(msg);
}
And call that:
foo("Hi!");
Or, you can just never bind the function to a name:
(function(msg){
alert(msg);
})("Hi!");
Functions can also return functions:
function make_foo() {
return function(msg){ alert(msg) };
}
(make_foo())("Hi!");
It's worth nothing that any variables defined with "var" in the body of make_foo will be closed over by each function returned by make_foo. This is a closure, and it means that the any change made to the value by one function will be visible by another.
This lets you encapsulate information, if you desire:
function make_greeter(msg){
return function() { alert(msg) };
}
var hello = make_greeter("Hello!");
hello();
It's just how nearly every programming language but Java works.
The code you show,
(function (msg){alert(msg)});
('SO');
consist of two statements. The first is an expression which yields a function object (which will then be garbage collected because it is not saved). The second is an expression which yields a string. To apply the function to the string, you either need to pass the string as an argument to the function when it is created (which you also show above), or you will need to actually store the function in a variable, so that you can apply it at a later time, at your leisure. Like so:
var f = (function (msg){alert(msg)});
f('SO');
Note that by storing an anonymous function (a lambda function) in a variable, your are effectively giving it a name. Hence you may just as well define a regular function:
function f(msg) {alert(msg)};
f('SO');
In summary of the previous comments:
function() {
alert("hello");
}();
when not assigned to a variable, yields a syntax error. The code is parsed as a function statement (or definition), which renders the closing parentheses syntactically incorrect. Adding parentheses around the function portion tells the interpreter (and programmer) that this is a function expression (or invocation), as in
(function() {
alert("hello");
})();
This is a self-invoking function, meaning it is created anonymously and runs immediately because the invocation happens in the same line where it is declared. This self-invoking function is indicated with the familiar syntax to call a no-argument function, plus added parentheses around the name of the function: (myFunction)();.
There is a good SO discussion JavaScript function syntax.
My understanding of the asker's question is such that:
How does this magic work:
(function(){}) ('input') // Used in his example
I may be wrong. However, the usual practice that people are familiar with is:
(function(){}('input') )
The reason is such that JavaScript parentheses AKA (), can't contain statements and when the parser encounters the function keyword, it knows to parse it as a function expression and not a function declaration.
Source: blog post Immediately-Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)
examples without brackets:
void function (msg) { alert(msg); }
('SO');
(this is the only real use of void, afaik)
or
var a = function (msg) { alert(msg); }
('SO');
or
!function (msg) { alert(msg); }
('SO');
work as well. the void is causing the expression to evaluate, as well as the assignment and the bang. the last one works with ~, +, -, delete, typeof, some of the unary operators (void is one as well). not working are of couse ++, -- because of the requirement of a variable.
the line break is not necessary.
This answer is not strictly related to the question, but you might be interested to find out that this kind of syntax feature is not particular to functions. For example, we can always do something like this:
alert(
{foo: "I am foo", bar: "I am bar"}.foo
); // alerts "I am foo"
Related to functions. As they are objects, which inherit from Function.prototype, we can do things like:
Function.prototype.foo = function () {
return function () {
alert("foo");
};
};
var bar = (function () {}).foo();
bar(); // alerts foo
And you know, we don't even have to surround functions with parenthesis in order to execute them. Anyway, as long as we try to assign the result to a variable.
var x = function () {} (); // this function is executed but does nothing
function () {} (); // syntax error
One other thing you may do with functions, as soon as you declare them, is to invoke the new operator over them and obtain an object. The following are equivalent:
var obj = new function () {
this.foo = "bar";
};
var obj = {
foo : "bar"
};
There is one more property JavaScript function has. If you want to call same anonymous function recursively.
(function forInternalOnly(){
//you can use forInternalOnly to call this anonymous function
/// forInternalOnly can be used inside function only, like
var result = forInternalOnly();
})();
//this will not work
forInternalOnly();// no such a method exist
It is a self-executing anonymous function. The first set of brackets contain the expressions to be executed, and the second set of brackets executes those expressions.
(function () {
return ( 10 + 20 );
})();
Peter Michaux discusses the difference in An Important Pair of Parentheses.
It is a useful construct when trying to hide variables from the parent namespace. All the code within the function is contained in the private scope of the function, meaning it can't be accessed at all from outside the function, making it truly private.
See:
Closure (computer science)
JavaScript Namespacing
Important Pair of Javascript Parentheses
Another point of view
First, you can declare an anonymous function:
var foo = function(msg){
alert(msg);
}
Then you call it:
foo ('Few');
Because foo = function(msg){alert(msg);} so you can replace foo as:
function(msg){
alert(msg);
} ('Few');
But you should wrap your entire anonymous function inside pair of braces to avoid syntax error of declaring function when parsing. Then we have,
(function(msg){
alert(msg);
}) ('Few');
By this way, It's easy understand for me.
When you did:
(function (msg){alert(msg)});
('SO');
You ended the function before ('SO') because of the semicolon. If you just write:
(function (msg){alert(msg)})
('SO');
It will work.
Working example: http://jsfiddle.net/oliverni/dbVjg/
The simple reason why it doesn't work is not because of the ; indicating the end of the anonymous function. It is because without the () on the end of a function call, it is not a function call. That is,
function help() {return true;}
If you call result = help(); this is a call to a function and will return true.
If you call result = help; this is not a call. It is an assignment where help is treated like data to be assigned to result.
What you did was declaring/instantiating an anonymous function by adding the semicolon,
(function (msg) { /* Code here */ });
and then tried to call it in another statement by using just parentheses... Obviously because the function has no name, but this will not work:
('SO');
The interpreter sees the parentheses on the second line as a new instruction/statement, and thus it does not work, even if you did it like this:
(function (msg){/*code here*/});('SO');
It still doesn't work, but it works when you remove the semicolon because the interpreter ignores white spaces and carriages and sees the complete code as one statement.
(function (msg){/*code here*/}) // This space is ignored by the interpreter
('SO');
Conclusion: a function call is not a function call without the () on the end unless under specific conditions such as being invoked by another function, that is, onload='help' would execute the help function even though the parentheses were not included. I believe setTimeout and setInterval also allow this type of function call too, and I also believe that the interpreter adds the parentheses behind the scenes anyhow which brings us back to "a function call is not a function call without the parentheses".
(function (msg){alert(msg)})
('SO');
This is a common method of using an anonymous function as a closure which many JavaScript frameworks use.
This function called is automatically when the code is compiled.
If placing ; at the first line, the compiler treated it as two different lines. So you can't get the same results as above.
This can also be written as:
(function (msg){alert(msg)}('SO'));
For more details, look into JavaScript/Anonymous Functions.
The IIFE simply compartmentalizes the function and hides the msg variable so as to not "pollute" the global namespace. In reality, just keep it simple and do like below unless you are building a billion dollar website.
var msg = "later dude";
window.onunload = function(msg){
alert( msg );
};
You could namespace your msg property using a Revealing Module Pattern like:
var myScript = (function() {
var pub = {};
//myscript.msg
pub.msg = "later dude";
window.onunload = function(msg) {
alert(msg);
};
//API
return pub;
}());
Anonymous functions are functions that are dynamically declared at
runtime. They’re called anonymous functions because they aren’t
given a name in the same way as normal functions.
Anonymous functions are declared using the function operator instead
of the function declaration. You can use the function operator to
create a new function wherever it’s valid to put an expression. For
example, you could declare a new function as a parameter to a
function call or to assign a property of another object.
Here’s a typical example of a named function:
function flyToTheMoon() {
alert("Zoom! Zoom! Zoom!");
}
flyToTheMoon();
Here’s the same example created as an anonymous function:
var flyToTheMoon = function() {
alert("Zoom! Zoom! Zoom!");
}
flyToTheMoon();
For details please read http://helephant.com/2008/08/23/javascript-anonymous-functions/
Anonymous functions are meant to be one-shot deal where you define a function on the fly so that it generates an output from you from an input that you are providing. Except that you did not provide the input. Instead, you wrote something on the second line ('SO'); - an independent statement that has nothing to do with the function. What did you expect? :)
I'm learning javascript from Crockford's book Javascript: The Good Parts. He explains there how to use closure to encapsulate information. E.g.
var myObject = (function () {
var value = 0;
return {
getValue: function () {
return value;
}
};
}());
If I have understood this correctly, the idea is that we define a function returning an object literal. This function is then invoked to initialize myObject. But what is the point of the outmost brackets?[(f...);]. Isnt the pair () enough to invoke the function we have defined?
You are correct; the outermost parentheses do nothing, although it is common practice to put them anyway -- it helps with readability. When people see a function enclosed in parentheses like that, they expect it to be immediately invoked, whereas if the parentheses were not there it may not be as apparent at first. It's nothing more than a visual cue here.
However, note that parentheses around a function are needed in some cases to make it a function expression rather than a function declaration.
For example, the following will not work:
function() {
// Do something...
}();
// Throws a syntax error.
In this case, you'll get a syntax error because the parser is expecting a function declaration, and you didn't give this function a name. In addition, you can't immediately invoke a function declaration. You need parentheses to convert this into a function expression:
(function() {
// Do something...
})();
The difference in a function declaration and a function expression is a function declaration can be used to declare a function in the same way as var can be used to declare a variable:
// Declare the variable foo.
var foo;
// Declare the function bar.
function bar() {
// Do something...
}
A function expression, however, doesn't declare a variable. Rather it just creates a function which you can use for something, such as assign it to a variable or just to invoke.
In order to make a function expression you just have to start the line with something other than function. A common technique, as seen above, is to start it with a parenthesis. As you mentioned you can also start the line with var something = ...:
var foo = function() {
return 5;
}();
// foo is now 5
You can really start it with anything which would make a valid expression though:
!function() {
console.log(1);
}();
// logs 1
~function() {
console.log(2);
}();
// logs 2
+function() {
console.log(3);
}();
// logs 3
[ function() {
console.log(4);
}() ];
// logs 4
'Hello, World' == function() {
console.log(5);
}();
// logs 5
Of course, if you're trying to store the result of the function in a variable, you won't be able to use any of these patterns, as they all mess with the return value. Most people stick to wrapping functions in parentheses, whether they are necessary or not, just for the sake of consistency and readability.
While reading about IronJS, I can across the article here http://ironjs.wordpress.com/
In it is the following:
*Context sensitive function keyword
In case you didn’t know, these two functions are not identical:
(function bar() { })
function foo() { }
Finding out the difference I’ll leave as an exercise to the reader.
Can some explain the difference here?
function foo() { }
Creates a function
(function foo(){ })
Returns a function object. You can also use:
(function foo(){ })(bar)
And make an anonymous function. (Note that the (bar) means that within that function this refers to the bar instance.)
Check out this other SO post for more information.
I am guessing the difference is that the first one is not visible to the global scope and the latter is visible globally.
To expand on #Amir's answer:
js>(function bar() {})(3)
js>bar
console:1 ReferenceError: bar is not defined
js>function foo() {}
js>foo
function foo() {
}
(code executed in jsdb)
These are named functions, and if you don't put parentheses around the function definition, they become part of the local scope. function foo() {} becomes available for use later, but bar does not.
As a third example:
var x = function baz() {};
If you run this:
js>var x = function baz() {}
js>baz
console:1 ReferenceError: baz is not defined
You'll note that it's the similar case as (function baz(){})(3).
The case of
function foo() {}
is special, the Javascript interpreter sees that form and says, "Oh, you're trying to define a function named "foo" in the local scope."
As for why a named function is useful even if it doesn't get defined in the local scope -- the named function is visible from the scope of the function itself:
js>var x = function fact(n) { return n*((n < 2) ? 1 : fact(n-1)); }
js>x(3)
6
js>fact
console:1 ReferenceError: fact is not defined
Here we have a factorial function named "fact", but the name "fact" is only visible inside the scope of the function itself.
The first function is a named anonymous function (yeah). The expression evaluates to a Function. The second one defines a named function and returns undefined.
As far as I know, function foo() { aaa(); } is just var foo = function(){ aaa() } in JavaScript. So adding function foo() { bbb(); } should either overwrite the foo variable, or ignore the second definition - that's not the point. The point is that there should be one variable foo.
So, in this example the me variable should not be correctly resolved from inside the methods and it is not in Explorer 8 :-). I came to this example by trying to wrap them into another closure where (var) me would be, but I was surprised that it's not necessary:
var foo = {
bar1 : function me() {
var index = 1;
alert(me);
},
bar2 : function me() {
var index = 2;
alert(me);
}
};
foo.bar1(); // Shows the first one
foo.bar2(); // Shows the second one
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/W5dqy/5/
AFAIK function foo() { aaa(); } is just var foo = function(){ aaa() } in JavaScript.
Not quite; they're similar, but also quite different. JavaScript has two different but related things: Function declarations (your first example there), and function expressions (your second, which you then assign to a variable). They happen at different times in the parsing cycle and have different effects.
This is a function declaration:
function foo() {
// ...
}
Function declarations are processed upon entry into the enclosing scope, before any step-by-step code is executed.
This is a function expression (specifically, an anonymous one):
var foo = function() {
// ...
};
Function expressions are processed as part of the step-by-step code, at the point where they appear (just like any other expression).
Your quoted code is using a named function expression, which look like this:
var x = function foo() {
// ...
};
(In your case it's within an object literal, so it's on the right-hand side of an : instead of an =, but it's still a named function expression.)
That's perfectly valid, ignoring implementation bugs (more in a moment). It creates a function with the name foo, doesn't put foo in the enclosing scope, and then assigns that function to the x variable (all of this happening when the expression is encountered in the step-by-step code). When I say it doesn't put foo in the enclosing scope, I mean exactly that:
var x = function foo() {
alert(typeof foo); // alerts "function" (in compliant implementations)
};
alert(typeof foo); // alerts "undefined" (in compliant implementations)
Note how that's different from the way function declarations work (where the function's name is added to the enclosing scope).
Named function expressions work on compliant implementations. Historically, there were bugs in implementations (early Safari, IE8 and earlier). Modern implementations get them right, including IE9 and up. (More here: Double take and here: Named function expressions demystified.)
So, in this example the me variable shoudl not be corectly resolved from inside the methods
Actually, it should be. A function's true name (the symbol between function and the opening parenthesis) is always in-scope within the function (whether the function is from a declaration or a named function expression).
NOTE: The below was written in 2011. With the advances in JavaScript since, I no longer feel the need to do things like the below unless I know I'm going to be dealing with IE8 (which is very rare these days).
Because of implementation bugs, I used to avoid named function expressions. You can do that in your example by just removing the me names, but I prefer named functions, and so for what it's worth, here's how I used to write your object:
var foo = (function(){
var publicSymbols = {};
publicSymbols.bar1 = bar1_me;
function bar1_me() {
var index = 1;
alert(bar1_me);
}
publicSymbols.bar2 = bar2_me;
function bar2_me() {
var index = 2;
alert(bar2_me);
}
return publicSymbols;
})();
(Except I'd probably use a shorter name than publicSymbols.)
Here's how that gets processed:
An anonymous enclosing function is created when the var foo = ... line is encountered in the step-by-step code, and then it is called (because I have the () at the very end).
Upon entry into the execution context created by that anonymous function, the bar1_me and bar2_me function declarations are processed and those symbols are added to the scope inside that anonymous function (technically, to the variable object for the execution context).
The publicSymbols symbol is added to the scope inside the anonymous function. (More: Poor misunderstood var)
Step-by-step code begins by assigning {} to publicSymbols.
Step-by-step code continues with publicSymbols.bar1 = bar1_me; and publicSymbols.bar2 = bar2_me;, and finally return publicSymbols;
The anonymous function's result is assigned to foo.
These days, though, unless I'm writing code I know needs to support IE8 (sadly, as I write this in November 2015 it still has significant global market share, but happily that share is plummetting), I don't worry about it. All modern JavaScript engines understand them just fine.
You can also write that like this:
var foo = (function(){
return {
bar1: bar1_me,
bar2: bar2_me
};
function bar1_me() {
var index = 1;
alert(bar1_me);
}
function bar2_me() {
var index = 2;
alert(bar2_me);
}
})();
...since those are function declarations, and thus are hoisted. I don't usually do it like that, as I find it easier to do maintenance on large structures if I do the declaration and the assignment to the property next to each other (or, if not writing for IE8, on the same line).
Both me lookups, are only visible/available inside the function expression.
Infact those two are named function expressions, and the ECMAscript specification tells us, that the name of an expression is not exposed to the such called Variable object.
Well I tried to put that only in a few words, but while trying to find the right words, this ends up in pretty deep chain of ECMAscript behavior. So, function expression are not stored in a Variable / Activation Object. (Would lead to the question, who those guys are...).
Short: Every time a function is called, a new Context is created. There is some "blackmagic" kind of guy that is called, Activation object which stores some stuff. For instance, the
arguments of the function
the [[Scope]]
any variables created by var
For instance:
function foo(test, bar) {
var hello = "world";
function visible() {
}
(function ghost() {
}());
}
The Activation Object for foo would look like:
arguments: test, bar
variables: hello (string), visible (function)
[[Scope]]: (possible parent function-context), Global Object
ghost is not stored in the AO! it would just be accesssible under that name within the function itself. While visible() is a function declaration (or function statement) it is stored in the AO. This is because, a function declaration is evaluated when parsing and function expression is evaluated at runtime.
What happens here is that function() has many different meanings and uses.
When I say
bar1 : function me() {
}
then that's 100% equivalent to
bar1 : function() {
}
i.e. the name doesn't matter when you use function to assign the variable bar1. Inside, me is assigned but as soon as the function definition is left (when you assign bar2), me is created again as a local variable for the function definition that is stored in bar2.
This question already has answers here:
var functionName = function() {} vs function functionName() {}
(41 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
What is the difference between the following lines of code?
//Function declaration
function foo() { return 5; }
//Anonymous function expression
var foo = function() { return 5; }
//Named function expression
var foo = function foo() { return 5; }
Questions:
What is a named/anonymous function expression?
What is a declared function?
How do browsers deal with these constructs differently?
What do the responses to a similar question (var functionName = function() {} vs function functionName() {}) not get exactly right?
They're actually really similar. How you call them is exactly the same.The difference lies in how the browser loads them into the execution context.
Function declarations load before any code is executed.
Function expressions load only when the interpreter reaches that line of code.
So if you try to call a function expression before it's loaded, you'll get an error! If you call a function declaration instead, it'll always work, because no code can be called until all declarations are loaded.
Example: Function Expression
alert(foo()); // ERROR! foo wasn't loaded yet
var foo = function() { return 5; }
Example: Function Declaration
alert(foo()); // Alerts 5. Declarations are loaded before any code can run.
function foo() { return 5; }
As for the second part of your question:
var foo = function foo() { return 5; } is really the same as the other two. It's just that this line of code used to cause an error in safari, though it no longer does.
Function Declaration
function foo() { ... }
Because of function hoisting, the function declared this way can be called both after and before the definition.
Function Expression
Named Function Expression
var foo = function bar() { ... }
Anonymous Function Expression
var foo = function() { ... }
foo() can be called only after creation.
Immediately-Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)
(function() { ... }());
Conclusion
Douglas Crockford recommends to use function expression in his «JavaScript: The Good Parts» book because it makes it clear that foo is a variable containing a function value.
Well, personally, I prefer to use Declaration unless there is a reason for Expression.
Regarding 3rd definition:
var foo = function foo() { return 5; }
Heres an example which shows how to use possibility of recursive call:
a = function b(i) {
if (i>10) {
return i;
}
else {
return b(++i);
}
}
console.log(a(5)); // outputs 11
console.log(a(10)); // outputs 11
console.log(a(11)); // outputs 11
console.log(a(15)); // outputs 15
Edit:
more interesting example with closures:
a = function(c) {
return function b(i){
if (i>c) {
return i;
}
return b(++i);
}
}
d = a(5);
console.log(d(3)); // outputs 6
console.log(d(8)); // outputs 8
The first statement depends on the context in which it is declared.
If it is declared in the global context it will create an implied global variable called "foo" which will be a variable which points to the function. Thus the function call "foo()" can be made anywhere in your javascript program.
If the function is created in a closure it will create an implied local variable called "foo" which you can then use to invoke the function inside the closure with "foo()"
EDIT:
I should have also said that function statements (The first one) are parsed before function expressions (The other 2). This means that if you declare the function at the bottom of your script you will still be able to use it at the top. Function expressions only get evaluated as they are hit by the executing code.
END EDIT
Statements 2 & 3 are pretty much equivalent to each other. Again if used in the global context they will create global variables and if used within a closure will create local variables. However it is worth noting that statement 3 will ignore the function name, so esentially you could call the function anything. Therefore
var foo = function foo() { return 5; }
Is the same as
var foo = function fooYou() { return 5; }
Though the complete difference is more complicated, the only difference that concerns me is when the machine creates the function object. Which in the case of declarations is before any statement is executed but after a statement body is invoked (be that the global code body or a sub-function's), and in the case of expressions is when the statement it is in gets executed. Other than that for all intents and purposes browsers treat them the same.
To help you understand, take a look at this performance test which busted an assumption I had made of internally declared functions not needing to be re-created by the machine when the outer function is invoked. Kind of a shame too as I liked writing code that way.