I want to pass variable setTimeoutfunction and do something with that. When I alert value of i it shows me numbers that i did not expected. What i m doing wrong? I want log values from 1 till 8.
var end=8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i ++) {
setTimeout(function (i) {
console.log(i);
}, 800);
}
The standard way to solve this is to use a factory function:
var end=8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i ++) {
setTimeout(makeResponder(i), 800);
}
function makeResponder(index) {
return function () {
console.log(index);
};
}
Live example | source
There, we call makeResponder in the loop, and it returns a function that closes over the argument passed into it (index) rather than the i variable. (Which is important. If you just removed the i argument from your anonymous function, your code would partially work, but all of the functions would see the value of i as of when they ran, not when they were initially scheduled; in your example, they'd all see 8.)
Update From your comments below:
...will it be correct if i call it in that way setTimeout(makeResponder(i),i*800);?
Yes, if your goal is to have each call occur roughly 800ms later than the last one, that will work:
Live example | source
I tried setTimeout(makeResponder(i),setInterval(i));function setInterval(index) { console.log(index*800); return index*800; } but it's not work properly
You don't use setInterval that way, and probably don't want to use it for this at all.
Further update: You've said below:
I need first iteration print 8 delay 8 sec, second iteration print 7 delay 7 sec ........print 2 delay 2 sec ...print 0 delay 0 sec.
You just apply the principles above again, using a second timeout:
var end=8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i ++) {
setTimeout(makeResponder(i), i * 800);
}
function makeResponder(index) {
return function () {
var thisStart = new Date();
console.log("index = " + index + ", first function triggered");
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("index = " +
index +
", second function triggered after a further " +
(new Date() - thisStart) +
"ms delay");
}, index * 1000);
};
}
Live example | source
I think you now have all the tools you need to take this forward.
Your problem is that you are referring to the variable i some time later when your setTimeout() function fires and by then, the value of i has changed (it's gone to the end of the for loop. To keep each setTimeout with it's appropriate value of i, you have to capture that value i separately for each setTimeout() callback.
The previous answer using a factory function does that just fine, but I find self executing functions a little easier than factory functions to type and follow, but both can work because both capture the variables you want in a closure so you can reference their static value in the setTimeout callback.
Here's how a self executing function would work to solve this problem:
var end=8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i ++) {
(function (index) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(index);
}, 800);
})(i);
}
To set the timeout delay in proportion to the value of i, you would do this:
var end=8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i ++) {
(function (index) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(index);
}, index * 800);
})(i);
}
The self executing function is passed the value of i and the argument inside that function that contains that value is named index so you can refer to index to use the appropriate value.
Using let in ES6
With the ES6 of Javascript (released in 2015), you can use let in your for loop and it will create a new, separate variable for each iteration of the for loop. This is a more "modern" way to solve a problem like this:
const end = 8;
for (let i = 1; i < end; i++) { // use "let" in this line
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(i);
}, 800);
}
The main reason for this to not to work, is because, of the setTimeout which is set to run after 800 and the scope of i.
By the time it executes which the value of i will already have changed. Thus no definitive result could be received. Just like TJ said, the way to work this around is through a handler function.
function handler( var1) {
return function() {
console.log(var1);
}
}
var end = 8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i++) {
setTimeout(handler(i), 800);
}
Demo
setTimeout accepts variables as additional arguments:
setTimeout(function(a, b, c) {
console.log(a, b, c);
}, 1000, 'a', 'b', 'c');
Source.
EDIT: In your example, the effective value of i will likely be 8, since the function is merely to be called after the loop has finished. You need to pass the current value of i for each call:
var end=8;
for (var i = 1; i < end; i ++) {
setTimeout(function (i) {
console.log(i);
}, 800, i);
}
Related
This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have this script:
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
setTimeout(function() { alert(i) }, 100);
}
But 3 is alerted both times, instead of 1 then 2.
Is there a way to pass i, without writing the function as a string?
You have to arrange for a distinct copy of "i" to be present for each of the timeout functions.
function doSetTimeout(i) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(i);
}, 100);
}
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; ++i)
doSetTimeout(i);
If you don't do something like this (and there are other variations on this same idea), then each of the timer handler functions will share the same variable "i". When the loop is finished, what's the value of "i"? It's 3! By using an intermediating function, a copy of the value of the variable is made. Since the timeout handler is created in the context of that copy, it has its own private "i" to use.
Edit:
There have been a couple of comments over time in which some confusion was evident over the fact that setting up a few timeouts causes the handlers to all fire at the same time. It's important to understand that the process of setting up the timer — the calls to setTimeout() — take almost no time at all. That is, telling the system, "Please call this function after 1000 milliseconds" will return almost immediately, as the process of installing the timeout request in the timer queue is very fast.
Thus, if a succession of timeout requests is made, as is the case in the code in the OP and in my answer, and the time delay value is the same for each one, then once that amount of time has elapsed all the timer handlers will be called one after another in rapid succession.
If what you need is for the handlers to be called at intervals, you can either use setInterval(), which is called exactly like setTimeout() but which will fire more than once after repeated delays of the requested amount, or instead you can establish the timeouts and multiply the time value by your iteration counter. That is, to modify my example code:
function doScaledTimeout(i) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(I);
}, i * 5000);
}
(With a 100 millisecond timeout, the effect won't be very obvious, so I bumped the number up to 5000.) The value of i is multiplied by the base delay value, so calling that 5 times in a loop will result in delays of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 20 seconds, and 25 seconds.
Update
Here in 2018, there is a simpler alternative. With the new ability to declare variables in scopes more narrow than functions, the original code would work if so modified:
for (let i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(i)
}, 100);
}
The let declaration, unlike var, will itself cause there to be a distinct i for each iteration of the loop.
You can use an immediately-invoked function expression (IIFE) to create a closure around setTimeout:
for (var i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
(function(index) {
setTimeout(function() { alert(index); }, i * 1000);
})(i);
}
This's Because!
The timeout function
callbacks are all running well after the completion of the loop. In fact,
as timers go, even if it was setTimeout(.., 0) on each iteration, all
those function callbacks would still run strictly after the completion
of the loop, that's why 3 was reflected!
all two of those functions, though they are defined
separately in each loop iteration, are closed over the same shared global
scope, which has, in fact, only one i in it.
the Solution's declaring a single scope for each iteration by using a self-function executed(anonymous one or better IIFE) and having a copy of i in it, like this:
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
(function(){
var j = i;
setTimeout(function() { console.log(j) }, 100);
})();
}
the cleaner one would be
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
(function(i){
setTimeout(function() { console.log(i) }, 100);
})(i);
}
The use of an IIFE(self-executed function) inside each iteration created a new scope for each
iteration, which gave our timeout function callbacks the opportunity
to close over a new scope for each iteration, one which had a variable
with the right per-iteration value in it for us to access.
The function argument to setTimeout is closing over the loop variable. The loop finishes before the first timeout and displays the current value of i, which is 3.
Because JavaScript variables only have function scope, the solution is to pass the loop variable to a function that sets the timeout. You can declare and call such a function like this:
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
(function (x) {
setTimeout(function () { alert(x); }, 100);
})(i);
}
You can use the extra arguments to setTimeout to pass parameters to the callback function.
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
setTimeout(function(j) { alert(j) }, 100, i);
}
Note: This doesn't work on IE9 and below browsers.
ANSWER?
I'm using it for an animation for adding items to a cart - a cart icon floats to the cart area from the product "add" button, when clicked:
function addCartItem(opts) {
for (var i=0; i<opts.qty; i++) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log('ADDED ONE!');
}, 1000*i);
}
};
NOTE the duration is in unit times n epocs.
So starting at the the click moment, the animations start epoc (of EACH animation) is the product of each one-second-unit multiplied by the number of items.
epoc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(reference_date)
Hope this helps!
You could use bind method
for (var i = 1, j = 1; i <= 3; i++, j++) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(this);
}.bind(i), j * 100);
}
Well, another working solution based on Cody's answer but a little more general can be something like this:
function timedAlert(msg, timing){
setTimeout(function(){
alert(msg);
}, timing);
}
function yourFunction(time, counter){
for (var i = 1; i <= counter; i++) {
var msg = i, timing = i * time * 1000; //this is in seconds
timedAlert (msg, timing);
};
}
yourFunction(timeInSeconds, counter); // well here are the values of your choice.
I had the same problem once this is how I solved it.
Suppose I want 12 delays with an interval of 2 secs
function animate(i){
myVar=setTimeout(function(){
alert(i);
if(i==12){
clearTimeout(myVar);
return;
}
animate(i+1)
},2000)
}
var i=1; //i is the start point 1 to 12 that is
animate(i); //1,2,3,4..12 will be alerted with 2 sec delay
the real solution is here, but you need to be familiar with PHP programing language.
you must mix PHP and JAVASCRIPT orders in order to reach to your purpose.
pay attention to this :
<?php
for($i=1;$i<=3;$i++){
echo "<script language='javascript' >
setTimeout(function(){alert('".$i."');},3000);
</script>";
}
?>
It exactly does what you want, but be careful about how to make ralation between
PHP variables and JAVASCRIPT ones.
This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have this script:
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
setTimeout(function() { alert(i) }, 100);
}
But 3 is alerted both times, instead of 1 then 2.
Is there a way to pass i, without writing the function as a string?
You have to arrange for a distinct copy of "i" to be present for each of the timeout functions.
function doSetTimeout(i) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(i);
}, 100);
}
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; ++i)
doSetTimeout(i);
If you don't do something like this (and there are other variations on this same idea), then each of the timer handler functions will share the same variable "i". When the loop is finished, what's the value of "i"? It's 3! By using an intermediating function, a copy of the value of the variable is made. Since the timeout handler is created in the context of that copy, it has its own private "i" to use.
Edit:
There have been a couple of comments over time in which some confusion was evident over the fact that setting up a few timeouts causes the handlers to all fire at the same time. It's important to understand that the process of setting up the timer — the calls to setTimeout() — take almost no time at all. That is, telling the system, "Please call this function after 1000 milliseconds" will return almost immediately, as the process of installing the timeout request in the timer queue is very fast.
Thus, if a succession of timeout requests is made, as is the case in the code in the OP and in my answer, and the time delay value is the same for each one, then once that amount of time has elapsed all the timer handlers will be called one after another in rapid succession.
If what you need is for the handlers to be called at intervals, you can either use setInterval(), which is called exactly like setTimeout() but which will fire more than once after repeated delays of the requested amount, or instead you can establish the timeouts and multiply the time value by your iteration counter. That is, to modify my example code:
function doScaledTimeout(i) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(I);
}, i * 5000);
}
(With a 100 millisecond timeout, the effect won't be very obvious, so I bumped the number up to 5000.) The value of i is multiplied by the base delay value, so calling that 5 times in a loop will result in delays of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 20 seconds, and 25 seconds.
Update
Here in 2018, there is a simpler alternative. With the new ability to declare variables in scopes more narrow than functions, the original code would work if so modified:
for (let i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(i)
}, 100);
}
The let declaration, unlike var, will itself cause there to be a distinct i for each iteration of the loop.
You can use an immediately-invoked function expression (IIFE) to create a closure around setTimeout:
for (var i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
(function(index) {
setTimeout(function() { alert(index); }, i * 1000);
})(i);
}
This's Because!
The timeout function
callbacks are all running well after the completion of the loop. In fact,
as timers go, even if it was setTimeout(.., 0) on each iteration, all
those function callbacks would still run strictly after the completion
of the loop, that's why 3 was reflected!
all two of those functions, though they are defined
separately in each loop iteration, are closed over the same shared global
scope, which has, in fact, only one i in it.
the Solution's declaring a single scope for each iteration by using a self-function executed(anonymous one or better IIFE) and having a copy of i in it, like this:
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
(function(){
var j = i;
setTimeout(function() { console.log(j) }, 100);
})();
}
the cleaner one would be
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
(function(i){
setTimeout(function() { console.log(i) }, 100);
})(i);
}
The use of an IIFE(self-executed function) inside each iteration created a new scope for each
iteration, which gave our timeout function callbacks the opportunity
to close over a new scope for each iteration, one which had a variable
with the right per-iteration value in it for us to access.
The function argument to setTimeout is closing over the loop variable. The loop finishes before the first timeout and displays the current value of i, which is 3.
Because JavaScript variables only have function scope, the solution is to pass the loop variable to a function that sets the timeout. You can declare and call such a function like this:
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
(function (x) {
setTimeout(function () { alert(x); }, 100);
})(i);
}
You can use the extra arguments to setTimeout to pass parameters to the callback function.
for (var i = 1; i <= 2; i++) {
setTimeout(function(j) { alert(j) }, 100, i);
}
Note: This doesn't work on IE9 and below browsers.
ANSWER?
I'm using it for an animation for adding items to a cart - a cart icon floats to the cart area from the product "add" button, when clicked:
function addCartItem(opts) {
for (var i=0; i<opts.qty; i++) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log('ADDED ONE!');
}, 1000*i);
}
};
NOTE the duration is in unit times n epocs.
So starting at the the click moment, the animations start epoc (of EACH animation) is the product of each one-second-unit multiplied by the number of items.
epoc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(reference_date)
Hope this helps!
You could use bind method
for (var i = 1, j = 1; i <= 3; i++, j++) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert(this);
}.bind(i), j * 100);
}
Well, another working solution based on Cody's answer but a little more general can be something like this:
function timedAlert(msg, timing){
setTimeout(function(){
alert(msg);
}, timing);
}
function yourFunction(time, counter){
for (var i = 1; i <= counter; i++) {
var msg = i, timing = i * time * 1000; //this is in seconds
timedAlert (msg, timing);
};
}
yourFunction(timeInSeconds, counter); // well here are the values of your choice.
I had the same problem once this is how I solved it.
Suppose I want 12 delays with an interval of 2 secs
function animate(i){
myVar=setTimeout(function(){
alert(i);
if(i==12){
clearTimeout(myVar);
return;
}
animate(i+1)
},2000)
}
var i=1; //i is the start point 1 to 12 that is
animate(i); //1,2,3,4..12 will be alerted with 2 sec delay
the real solution is here, but you need to be familiar with PHP programing language.
you must mix PHP and JAVASCRIPT orders in order to reach to your purpose.
pay attention to this :
<?php
for($i=1;$i<=3;$i++){
echo "<script language='javascript' >
setTimeout(function(){alert('".$i."');},3000);
</script>";
}
?>
It exactly does what you want, but be careful about how to make ralation between
PHP variables and JAVASCRIPT ones.
Background (You might want to skip this)
I'm working on a web app that animates the articulation of English phonemes, while playing the sound. It's based on the Interactive Sagittal Section by Daniel Currie Hall, and a first attempt can be found here.
For the next version, I want each phoneme to have it's own animation timings, which are defined in an array, which in turn, is included in an object variable.
For the sake of simplicity for this post, I have moved the timing array variable from the object into the function.
Problem
I set up a for loop that I thought would reference the index i and array t to set the milliseconds for each setTimeout.
function animateSam() {
var t = [0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000];
var key = "key_0";
for (var i = 0; i < t.length; i++) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(i);
key = "key_" + i.toString();
console.log(key);
//do stuff here
}, t[i]);
}
}
animateSam()
However, it seems the milliseconds are set by whatever i happens to be when the function gets to the top of the stack.
Question: Is there a reliable way to set the milliseconds from the array?
The for ends before the setTimeout function has finished, so you have to set the timeout inside a closure:
function animateSam(phoneme) {
var t = [0,1000,2000,3000,4000];
for (var i = 0; i < t.length; i++) {
(function(index) {
setTimeout(function() {
alert (index);
key = "key_" + index.toString();
alert (key);
//do stuff here
}, t[index]);
})(i);
}
}
Here you have the explanation of why is this happening:
https://hackernoon.com/how-to-use-javascript-closures-with-confidence-85cd1f841a6b
The for loop will loop all elements before the first setTimeout is triggered because of its asynchronous nature. By the time your loop runs, i will be equal to 5. Therefore, you get the same output five times.
You could use a method from the Array class, for example .forEach:
This ensures that the function is enclosed.
[0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000].forEach((t, i) => {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(i);
console.log(`key_${i}`);
//do stuff here
}, t)
});
Side note: I would advise you not to use alert while working/debugging as it is honestly quite confusing and annoying to work with. Best is to use a simple console.log.
Some more clarifications on the code:
.forEach takes in as primary argument the callback function to run on each of element. This callback can itself take two arguments (in our previous code t was the current element's value and i the current element's index in the array):
Array.forEach(function(value, index) {
});
But you can use the arrow function syntax, instead of defining the callback with function(e,i) { ... } you define it with: (e,i) => { ... }. That's all! Then the code will look like:
Array.forEach((value,index) => {
});
This syntax is a shorter way of defining your callback. There are some differences though.
I would suggest using a function closure as follows:
function animateSam(phoneme) {
var t = [0,1000,2000,3000,4000];
var handleAnimation = function (idx) {
return function() {
alert(idx);
key = "key_" + idx.toString();
alert(key);
//do stuff here
};
}
for (var i = 0; i < t.length; i++) {
setTimeout(handleAnimation(i), t[i]);
}
}
I this example you wrap the actual function in a wrapper function which captures the variable and passes on the value.
I am trying to loop through an array, but want to output each value of the array with a delay. This is what my current understanding is on how it should work:
EDIT
Requested JS Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/d3whkjww/
loopThroughSplittedText: function(splittedText) {
for (var i = 0; i < splittedText.length; i++) {
// for each iteration console.log a word
// and make a pause after it
setTimeout(
console.log(splittedText[i]),
1000
);
};
},
Yet, it does not work, and I believe it might be, because the arguments in the "for" loop have to be inside the setTimeout function. Yet I don't know how to make it work.
All I get is every value of the array at once, but I want them appear with a delay. How do I do that?
var splittedText = ["Hello", "World", "How", "Are", "You", "Today"];
function loopThroughSplittedText(splittedText) {
for (var i = 0; i < splittedText.length; i++) {
// for each iteration console.log a word
// and make a pause after it
(function (i) {
setTimeout(function () {
document.getElementById('text').innerHTML += splittedText[i];
console.log(splittedText[i]);
}, 1000 * i);
})(i);
};
}
loopThroughSplittedText(splittedText);
Fiddle Demo
Chances are you're going to want to use a recursive function instead of a for loop here. However, I'll explain both ways just in case you (or someone else reading this) has your heart set on doing this with a loop.
For a recursive function, the general idea is that you'll want to call the function once, then let it call itself repeatedly until it's finished doing what you want it to do. In terms of code, it will could look something a bit like this:
loopThroughSplittedText: function(splittedText) {
// Create our counter; delayedOutput will use this to
// track how far along in our string we are currently at
var locationInString = 0;
function delayedOutput() {
// Output the next letter in our string
console.log(splittedText[locationInString]);
// Increment our counter so that on the next call we are on the next letter
locationInString++;
// Only perform setTimeout if we still have text left to output
if (locationInString < splittedText.length) {
// Functions can reference themselves using their own name
setTimeout(delayedOutput, 1000);
}
}
// Call our function once to get things started
delayedOutput();
},
Alternatively, if you really prefer using a loop, you can still do it, but there's a fair bit of fiddling that has to be done to accomplish this.
First, you're going to need to place console.log within its own function. This is because when you place console.log(something), you're not actually passing it, but calling it right then and there, which is not what you want; by calling it, it spits out the text to the console right away rather than waiting until later. Tucking it away in its own function allows it to be passed to setTimeout so it can be called later on.
Second, you're going to have to wrap that function in yet another function to ensure that it's given the correct value of i when it fires. The reason is effectively this: Your intention is to tell the function "when you're ready, use what i was when I set you up." However, what you're doing right now is effectively saying "when you're ready, look at i". Because the function doesn't check what i is until it's ready to fire, it won't know its value until long after you have performed the loop, meaning i will be a number much higher than you want!
As a bit of a sub-point to the above, you'll want to call that function immediately. This is known as an immediately invoked function expression. If you're not familiar with them, they're certainly worth looking up. Their uses are a bit unusual, but they're a powerful tool in the right spot.
Finally, because you're setting up everything right here and now, you want to make sure the timeout for each function is a second apart; as it stands now, you're saying "do all of these one second from now", when your intention is "do all of these one second apart, starting one second from now". This fix is relatively easy; all you need to do is multiply your timeout by i so that you set up the first to go 1 second from now, the second to go 2 seconds from now, and so on.
All of that combined gives you code that looks something like this:
loopThroughSplittedText: function(splittedText) {
for (var i = 0; i < splittedText.length; i++) {
setTimeout(
(function(locationInString) {
return function() {
console.log(splittedText[locationInString]);
};
}(i)),
(1000*i)
);
}
},
As for which solution is better, I would probably recommend the recursive function. The recursive version will only create one function that calls itself for every string you pass it, whereas the for loop version will create one function for every character in the string, which could get out of hand very quickly. Function creation (and object creation in general) can get expensive in JavaScript when you're working on larger projects, so it's generally best to favor solutions that avoid creating massive amounts of functions when possible.
But still, for sake of explanation, I wouldn't want to leave you without the for loop version; the knowledge could come in handy in other places. :)
A recursive function call would do the job:
var a = [
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
];
function log(i){
console.log(a[i]);
if (i<a.length){
setTimeout(function(){
i++;
log(i);
},1000);
}
}
log(0);
http://jsfiddle.net/Curt/rjve4whe/1/
In my example, it will show you how to loop through an array contentiously until you stop. This is to just give you an idea on how you can do the delay. Also it shows you when the value actually got displayed.
I would say that you could actually create a nice utility from this timer, and use it for multiple purposes and with the utility it'll stop you from repeating large chunks of code.
JavaScript Loop example:
var body = document.body;
var splittedText = ["Hello", "World", "How", "Are", "You", "Today"];
loopThroughArray(splittedText, function (arrayElement, loopTime) {
body.innerHTML += arrayElement+ ": " + loopTime+ "<br/>";
}, 1000);
function loopThroughArray(array, callback, interval) {
var newLoopTimer = new LoopTimer(function (time) {
var element = array.shift();
callback(element, time - start);
array.push(element);
}, interval);
var start = newLoopTimer.start();
};
// Timer
function LoopTimer(render, interval) {
var timeout;
var lastTime;
this.start = startLoop;
this.stop = stopLoop;
// Start Loop
function startLoop() {
timeout = setTimeout(createLoop, 0);
lastTime = Date.now();
return lastTime;
}
// Stop Loop
function stopLoop() {
clearTimeout(timeout);
return lastTime;
}
// The actual loop
function createLoop() {
var thisTime = Date.now();
var loopTime = thisTime - lastTime;
var delay = Math.max(interval - loopTime, 0);
timeout = setTimeout(createLoop, delay);
lastTime = thisTime + delay;
render(thisTime);
}
}
Ok, as It is not an exact duplicate, you need to increate the delay in the loop, also escape from the closure variable in a loop issue
loopThroughSplittedText: function (splittedText) {
splittedText.forEach(function (text, i) {
setTimeout(function () {
console.log(text);
}, i * 1000)
})
}
var obj = {
loopThroughSplittedText: function(splittedText) {
splittedText.forEach(function(text, i) {
setTimeout(function() {
document.getElementById('x').innerHTML += text
}, i * 1000)
})
}
}
obj.loopThroughSplittedText('abcde'.split(''))
<div id="x"></div>
One problem with your code is that i is common to all the callbacks. So the first callback is told "output the entry at index i", however by the time it gets to execute the initial loop is finished so i is now at the end of the text.
One way to achieve what you're looking for is to not use a for loop, but to have a function which (1) prints a character, (2) updates the counter/position, and (3) schedules the next character if needed:
loopThroughSplitText: function (text) {
var i = 0;
function printEntry() {
console.log(text[i]);
i++; // Increment the position
if (i < text.length) { // If there are more chars, schedule another
setTimeout(printEntry, 1000);
}
}
printEntry(); // Print the first entry/char
}
solution using closure
https://jsfiddle.net/x3azn/pan2oc9y/4/
function loopThroughSplittedText(splittedText) {
var splittedText = ["Hello", "World", "How", "Are", "You", "Today"];
for (var i = 0; i < splittedText.length; i++) {
// for each iteration console.log a word
// and make a pause after it
(function(_i) {
setTimeout(function() {
window.document.getElementById('text').innerHTML = splittedText[_i];
console.log(splittedText[_i]);
}, 1000)
}(i));
}
}
loopThroughSplittedText()
One more solution, with a setInterval:
var i = 0;
var intv = setInterval(function() {
if (i >= splittedText.length) {
clearInterval(intv);
} else {
console.log(splittedText[i]);
++i;
}
}, 1000);
There are a couple of problems here
setTimeout should take a function, not the result of calling a function
setTimeout returns immediately, so all the actions in your loop will be started at roughly the same moment, and all wait 1000ms before execting (notwithstanding the comment above however, which means they're all executed at the same moment).
The value of i will all be equal to splittedText.length for each iteration due to not wrapping your loop control variable in a closure.
What you need to do, is wait until the setTimeout instructions are executed before moving on to the next iteration of the loop.
For example:
var splittedText = ["Hello", "World", "How", "Are", "You", "Today"];
function loopThroughSplittedText(splittedText) {
displayValue(splittedText,0);
}
function displayValue(arr, i){
if(i<arr.length){
setTimeout(function(){
document.getElementById('text').innerHTML = arr[i];
console.log(arr[i])
displayValue(arr,i+1);
},1000)
}
}
loopThroughSplittedText(splittedText)
Live example: http://jsfiddle.net/d3whkjww/1/
This will also work
function loopThroughSplittedText(splittedText) {
for (var i=0; i < splittedText.length;i++) {
(function(ind, text) {
setTimeout(function(){console.log(text);}, 1000 + (1000 * ind));
})(i, splittedText[i]);
}
}
Another sample:
var split = 'Lorem ipsum dolor'.split(' ');
var loop = function() {
console.log(split[0]);
split = split.slice(1);
if (split.length > 0) {
setTimeout(function() {
loop();
}, 1000);
}
}
loop();
Bringing out an alternative solution to the problem, which is making use of the third argument to setTimeout which is only supported in newer browsers:
(function (splittedText) {
for (var i = 0; i < splittedText.length; i++) {
setTimeout(
function(val) { console.log(val); },
i * 1000,
splittedText[i]
);
}
})(["Hello", "world", "!"]);
API documentation can be seen here (note the optional params).
You can achieve by 3 ways
1. closure
2. Recursive
3. variable declaration using let
var data = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];
closure:
for(i=0; i<=data.length; i++) {
(function(x) {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(x);
}, 1000)
})(data[i]);
}
let variable declaration
for(const ind of data) {
let local = ind;
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(local);
}, 1000)
}
I'm trying to set five staggered function calls (happening one second apart). That part works fine. What doesn't work is, I can't pass values 0 through 4 into the callback function. It just passes '5' each time. I can't seem to figure out why and how to fix it.
Code:
function callback(num)
{
console.log(num);
}
for (var i = 0, loadDelay = 1000; i < 5; ++ i, loadDelay += 1000)
setTimeout(function() { callback(i); }, loadDelay);
Result:
5
5
5
5
5
Desired result:
0
1
2
3
4
That's because you create a closure. So the function you pass to setTimeout share the same i instances. In the browser that supports the standards (not IE) you could have:
setTimeout(callback, loadDelay, i);
See:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/timers.html#timers
Otherwise you have to actually bind the argument to the function:
setTimeout(callback.bind(undefined, i), loadDelay);
See:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
If the browser doesn't support ES5 bind method, you can either implement the shim present in the link above, or manually doing something like:
setTimeout(function(index){
return function() { callback(index) }
}(i), loadDelay);
But I would say it's more readable using bind and it's worthy to implement the shim. You can actually use this: https://github.com/kriskowal/es5-shim
To add es5 capabilities (where is possible) in the browser that don't support es5 natively.
Use a lambda / function expression to capture the current value. For example
for (var i = 0, loadDelay = 1000; i < 5; ++ i, loadDelay += 1000) {
var doCall = function (j) {
setTimeout(function() { callback(j); }, loadDelay);
}
doCall(i);
}
The problem here is that there is only 1 i value for all iterations of the loop. Variables in javascript have function scope even though you can declare them inside of a block. This means i is alive for the entire function.
To illustrate the problem consider the below code executes exactly the same as your sample
var i;
for (i = 0, loadDelay = 1000; i < 5; ++ i, loadDelay += 1000) {
...
}
My solution works because it introduces a new function and hence a new variable lifetime for j. This saves the current value of i in the function for use in the setTimeout callback
You needed a closure in order to pass i due to variable scoping. Check out this article, and this one as well for some good information on closures.
Live Demo
function callback(num)
{
console.log(num);
}
for (var i = 0, loadDelay = 1000; i < 5; ++ i, loadDelay += 1000)
setTimeout((function(num){return function(){
callback(num);
}
})(i), loadDelay);
setTimeout creates some odd scoping problems. Frame.js was designed to resolve some of this kind of confusion, this also works [updated]:
function callback(num) {
console.log(num);
}
for (var i = 0, loadDelay = 1000; i < 5; ++ i, loadDelay += 1000) {
Frame(function(next, i){
setTimeout(function() { callback(i); }, loadDelay);
next();
}, i);
}
Frame.init();