Javascript function to encapsulate check if a variable is undefined? - javascript

I've been working on a javascript library, and I have a lot of redundant checks like this:
if(typeof foo !== "undefined" && foo !== null)
So, I wanted to create a function that will be a shortcut to this unwieldy check. So I came up with this:
function isset(a)
{
return (typeof a !== "undefined" && a !== null) ? true : false;
}
But, since the value could be undefined, and it attempts to use a possibly undefined variable, it turns out to be useless.
Is there a way to accomplish this without have to extend a native prototype?

It really depends on what you mean by undefined.
1. You mean the variable does not exist.
In this case, what you want is not possible. typeof is an operator and therefore has magic behavior you just can't emulate using the language. If you try to pass a variable that doesn't exist to your function, it will throw a ReferenceError.
(See below for a workaround.)
2. You mean the variable has the value undefined, but does exist.
In this case, your function will do the trick -- though it could be simplified to the following:
function isset(variable) {
return variable != null;
}
This function will return false if the variable is either undefined or null. It takes advantage of the fact that undefined == null in JavaScript. Of course, with such a short function, one could argue that the function isn't needed at all.
Recall that a variable that is declared has a value -- undefined -- by default.
The name of your function suggests you mean case #1. I don't know what sort of library you are writing, but I can't imagine a case in a library where you would need to check if a variable exists, though I can definitely think of many possibilities for case #2.
If case #1 is necessary, remember that you can re-declare variables without changing their value:
a = 1; // pretend this was set somewhere higher up in the code
var a; // this does not change the value of `a`
If you re-declare variables before you use isset, you could avoid the ReferenceError problem. You won't be able to tell if the code has already declared the variable, though; you will only be able to tell if they have not assigned it to some other value.

You can check for null and undefined at the same time by using != instead.
// checks for both null and undefined
if( foo != null ) { ...
...so no need to use a function to shorten it.

null and undefined also evaluates to false in an if statement. So the following statement also works:
if(!foo)
...
This should cut it down significantly.

I do not understand why people keep promoting if (var) or if (!var). Both fail in my browsers. Meantime if (obj.prop) passes. This means that we should use if (this.someVar) or if (window.someVar) instead of if (varbl). Ok?

Related

Javascript using if(foo) exists to check if variable is set

I realize that this question is extremely similar to many others, but I must be missing some nuance with checking whether a variable is set or not. I have seen this in other developers code:
if(foo){
doSomething(foo);
}
else{
alert('error of whatever');
}
With the intent that the doSomething() will only execute if foo is set or not undefined. However, when I google this, it seems everyone says "typeof" should be used instead of the above method. I specifically see this in use with angular, like this:
if($scope.property){
dothis();
}
Am I missing something? When I see the above code, it seems to work, but all the answers I see never say this is the correct way to check if something is set or exists.
For if() checks, in MOST scenarios where you are checking for the existence of a property on an object (your situation), what you have described is perfectly valid, easy and convenient. It checks for the existence of the property and returns true if it exists.
However, there are plenty of nuanced areas where a typeof check is "more" correct, particularly if your type is being coerced in any way via == or if you want to differentiate between null and undefined.
For instance, if null is a valid value for your property to have but undefined is not, in your example dothis() would still be called. You would prevent this with a typeof check.
if (typeof $scope.property === 'undefined') {
dothis();
}
Finally, if you are checking for the existence of a variable instead of the existence of a property, an exception will be thrown if the variable you are checking is not defined, forcing you to use a typeof check.
In those scenarios, verbosity is your friend.
This has to do with the concept of "truthiness". Any value besides false, 0, "", null, undefined, and NaN is "truthy" which means the first block of the if-statement will run. For instance:
if ("") {
alert("falsie"); // won't run because the empty string ("") is falsie
} else {
alert("truthie"); // will run
}
whereas
if ("something") {
alert("truthy"); // will run because "something" is truthy
} else {
alert("falsie"); // won't run
}
Going back to your example, if foo is truthy (meaning that it has ANY value other than false, 0, "", null, undefined, and NaN) then it will run the first block of the if-statement (which has the doSomething() function in it).
You could also use short circuit evaluation and do this in one line.
($scope.property && doThis())
It is better to use typeof if you need to explicitly check whether the value is undefined or not. If you just want to check if the value is truthy, then you don't need typeof.
The reason the typeof operator is preferred is because it doesn't throw a ReferenceError exception when used with an undeclared variable.
However, it is important to note that variables initialized as null will return "object", so to avoid this issue, the following code is recommended:
if (typeof variable === 'undefined' || variable === null) {
// variable is undefined or null
}
What you are checking this way is if foo is not:
false
Undefined
Null
+0, −0, or NaN
Empty String
More info here:
https://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/truth-equality-and-javascript/
This way your function is only executed if foo is valid.
You may want to be more specific and check against a certain type with typeof.
var foo = 'foo';
if (typeof foo === 'string') { // true
doSomething();
}
The typeof operator returns a string indicating the type of the
unevaluated operand.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/typeof

Best practice of checking if variable is undefined

I was having some issues in my conditions concerning undefined variables. What is, to sum it up, the best way to check if a variable is undefined?
I was mainly struggling with
x === undefined
and
typeof x === 'undefined'
You can use both ways to check if the value is undefined. However, there are little nuances you need to be aware of.
The first approach uses strict comparison === operator to compare against undefined type:
var x;
// ...
x === undefined; // true
This will work as expected only if the variable is declared but not defined, i.e. has undefined value, meaning that you have var x somewhere in your code, but the it has never been assigned a value. So it's undefined by definition.
But if variable is not declared with var keyword above code will throw reference error:
x === undefined // ReferenceError: x is not defined
In situations like these, typeof comparison is more reliable:
typeof x == 'undefined' // true
which will work properly in both cases: if variable has never been assigned a value, and if its value is actually undefined.
I guess both, depending on what you're testing? If it's a property, I'd always use x === undefined, since it's clearer (and it seems faster).
As others said, x === undefined won't work if x is not declared. Personally, I find that an even better reason to use it, since normally I shouldn't be checking if a variable is declared at all — it would usually be a sign of a coding mistake.
I've seen a lot of the other version for testing arguments — f = function(x) {if (typeof x == 'undefined') …} — if I'm code-reviewing code like this I'll tell them to change it. We know for a fact the variable is declared, and making an habit of writing it that way increases the chance you'll waste time chasing typo bugs.
The main exception is when you're trying to check if a component or library was loaded or initialized correctly. if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') … makes sense. But in the medium term, all this should become modules anyway, in which case the typeof test should in my opinion be phased out as harmful.
(Also, personally, I prefer if (window.jQuery === undefined) for that case too. It's not portable for isomorphic code, though.)
x === undefined
does not work if variable is not declared. This returns true only if variable is declared but not defined.
Better to use
typeof x === 'undefined'
You could use any of them.
If you would like to check if a variable is undefined or null you could use:
x == null
This results in true if x is undefined or null.

localStorage alerts undefined but if undefined is false

Can not quite understand the reasoning for this. In the following code the localStorage of an item is alerted as undefined, but if I use an if(x==undefined) syntax it does not work. Can somebody explain what is the problem. Thank you.
alert(localStorage["x"]);
if(localStorage["x"]=="undefined"){alert("y");}
The top line alerts undefined
The bottom line does not alert y for me.
It doesn't contain the string "undefined", it contains a value of the type undefined:
if (localStorage["x"] == undefined) { alert("y"); }
The value undefined is possible to change in older browsers, so good practice is to check the type instead:
if (typeof localStorage["x"] == 'undefined') { alert("y"); }
Try:
if(typeof( localStorage["x"]) == 'undefined'){alert("y");}
OR
if( localStorage["x"] == undefined){alert("y");}
OR
if( !localStorage["x"] ){alert("y");}
The two ways of checking for something being undefined are:
typeof foo === "undefined"
and
foo === undefined
In the first case, it will be true if foo was never defined or the value of foo is undefined.
In the second case, it will only be true if foo was defined (otherwise it'll break) and its value is undefined.
Checking its value against the string "undefined" is not the same at all!
UPDATE:
When I said that if you try to perform an operation on an object literal's property that isn't defined, I guess I meant if it's undefined at all, and what I meant was something more like this:
obj["x"].toLowerCase()
// or
obj["x"]["y"]
where you are attempting to access/operate on something that is originally undefined. In this case, simply comparing in an if statement should be fine, because of the way object literals report the value...but is very different with normal Javascript variables.
With object literals, if a key (say "x") is not defined, then
obj["x"]
returns a value of undefined, so both the typeof and basic === undefined checks will work and be true.
The whole difference of not being defined or having a value of undefined is different with normal variables.
If you had:
var a;
// or
var a = undefined;
then both the typeof and basic === undefined checks I provided earlier would work and be true. But if you never even declared a, then only the typeof check would work and be true. The === undefined check would break.
Take a look at: http://jsfiddle.net/7npJx/
If you notice in the console, it says b is not defined and breaks the if statement.
Since you're basically looking at an object literal with localStorage, the way to distinguish whether an item is not defined or has a value of undefined is to use in first. So, you could use:
if (!("x" in localStorage)) {
to check if "x" is not a defined property at all, and:
else if (localStorage["x"] === undefined) {
to then check if it is defined but has a value of undefined. Then, using:
else {
would signify that localStorage["x"] is both defined and does not have the value undefined.
In your code though, it's okay to use the typeof or in checks (based on what you want to know) because of the way object literals report properties that aren't defined. Using the basic === undefined is also okay, but as Guffa pointed out, it's possible for the actual value of undefined to be overwritten and then wouldn't work in this comparison. When it comes to normal Javascript variables, typeof and === undefined checks aren't the same.

What reason is there to use null instead of undefined in JavaScript?

I've been writing JavaScript for quite a long time now, and I have never had a reason to use null. It seems that undefined is always preferable and serves the same purpose programmatically. What are some practical reasons to use null instead of undefined?
I don't really have an answer, but according to Nicholas C. Zakas, page 30 of his book "Professional JavaScript for Web Developers":
When defining a variable that is meant
to later hold an object, it is
advisable to initialize the variable
to null as opposed to anything else.
That way, you can explicitly check for the value null to determine if
the variable has been filled with an object reference at a later time
At the end of the day, because both null and undefined coerce to the same value (Boolean(undefined) === false && Boolean(null) === false), you can technically use either to get the job done. However, there is right way, IMO.
Leave the usage of undefined to the JavaScript compiler.
undefined is used to describe variables that do not point to a reference. It is something that the JS compiler will take care for you. At compile time the JS engine will set the value of all hoisted variables to undefined. As the engine steps through the code and values becomes available the engine will assign respective values to respective variables. For those variables for whom it did not find values, the variables would continue to maintain a reference to the primitive undefined.
Only use null if you explicitly want to denote the value of a variable as having "no value".
As #com2gz states: null is used to define something programmatically empty. undefined is meant to say that the reference is not existing. A null value has a defined reference to "nothing". If you are calling a non-existing property of an object, then you will get undefined. If I would make that property intentionally empty, then it must be null so you know that it's on purpose.
TLDR; Don't use the undefined primitive. It's a value that the JS compiler will automatically set for you when you declare variables without assignment or if you try to access properties of objects for which there is no reference. On the other hand, use null if and only if you intentionally want a variable to have "no value".
Sidebar: I, personally, avoid explicitly setting anything to undefined (and I haven't come across such a pattern in the many codebases/third party libs I've interacted with). Also, I rarely use null. The only times I use null is when I want to denote the value of an argument to a function as having no value, i.e.,:
function printArguments(a,b) {
console.log(a,b);
}
printArguments(null, " hello") // logs: null hello
null and undefined are essentially two different values that mean the same thing. The only difference is in the conventions of how you use them in your system. As some have mentioned, some people use null for meaning "no object" where you might sometimes get an object while undefined means that no object was expected (or that there was an error). My problem with that is its completely arbitrary, and totally unnecessary.
That said, there is one major difference - variables that aren't initialized (including function parameters where no argument was passed, among other things) are always undefined.
Which is why in my code I never use null unless something I don't control returns null (regex matching for example). The beauty of this is it simplifies things a lot. I never have to check if x === undefined || x === null, I can just check x === undefined. And if you're in the habit of using == or simply stuff like if(x) ... , stop it.
!x will evaluate to true for an empty string, 0, null, NaN - i.e. things you probably don't want. If you want to write javascript that isn't awful, always use triple equals === and never use null (use undefined instead). It'll make your life way easier.
undefined is where no notion of the thing exists; it has no type, and it's never been referenced before in that scope; null is where the thing is known to exist, but it has no value.
Everyone has their own way of coding and their own internal semantics, but over the years I have found this to be the most intuitive advice that I give people who ask this question: when in doubt, do what JavaScript does.
Let's say you are working with object properties like options for a jQuery plugin...ask yourself what value JavaScript gives a property that has yet to be defined -- the answer is undefined. So in this context, I would initialize these types of things with 'undefined' to be consistent with JavaScript (for variables, you can do var myVar; instead of var myVar = undefined;).
Now let's say you are doing DOM manipulation...what value does JavaScript assign to non-existent elements? The answer is null. This is the value I would initialize with if you are creating a placeholder variable that will later hold a reference to an element, document fragment, or similar that relates to the DOM.
If you're working with JSON, then a special case needs to be made: for undefined property values, you should either set them to "" or null because a value of undefined is not considered proper JSON format.
With this said, as a previous poster has expressed, if you find that you're initializing stuff with null or undefined more than once in a blue moon, then maybe you should reconsider how you go about coding your app.
You might adopt the convention suggested here, but there really is no good reason to. It is not used consistently enough to be meaningful.
In order to make the convention useful, you first must know that the called function follows the convention. Then you have to explicitly test the returned value and decide what to do. If you get undefined, you can assume that some kind of error occurred that the called function knew about. But if an error happened, and the function knew about it, and it is useful to send that out into the wider environment, why not use an error object? i.e. throw an error?
So at the end of the day, the convention is practically useless in anything other than very small programs in simple environments.
A few have said that it is ok to initialise objects to null. I just wanted to point out that destructuring argument defaults don't work with null. For example:
const test = ({ name } = {}) => {
console.log(name)
}
test() // logs undefined
test(null) // throws error
This requires performing null checks prior to calling the function which may happen often.
A useful property in null that undefined does not qualifies:
> null + 3
3
> undefined + 3
NaN
I use null when I want to 'turn off' a numeric value,
or to initialize some. My last use was manipulating css transform:
const transforms = { perspective : null, rotateX : null };
// if already set, increase, if not, set to x
runTimeFunction((x) => { trasforms.perspective += x; });
// still useful, as setting perspective to 0 is different than turning it off
runTimeFunction2((x) => { transforms.perspective = null; });
// toCss will check for 'null' values and not set then at all
runTimeFunction3(() => { el.style.transform = toCss(transforms); });
Not sure if I should use this property thought...
DOM nodes and elements are not undefined, but may be null.
The nextSibling of the last child of an element is null.
The previousSibling of the first child is null.
A document.getElementById reference is null if the element does not exist in the document.
But in none of these cases is the value undefined; there just is no node there.
Unknown variable: undefined.
Known variable yet no value: null.
You receive an object from a server, server_object.
You reference server_object.errj. It tells you it’s undefined. That means it doesn’t know what that is.
Now you reference server_object.err. It tells you it’s null. That means you’re referencing a correct variable but it’s empty; therefore no error.
The problem is when you declare a variable name without a value (var hello) js declares that as undefined: this variable doesn’t exist; whereas programmers mostly mean: “I’ve not given it a value yet”, the definition of null.
So the default behavior of a programmer—declaring a variable without a value as nothing—is at odds with js—declaring it as not existing. And besides, !undefined and !null are both true so most programmers treat them as equivalent.
You could of course ensure you always do var hello = null but most won’t litter their code as such to ensure type sanity in a deliberately loosely-typed language, when they and the ! operator treat both undefined and null as equivalent.
In JavaScript, the value null represents the intentional absence of any object value. null expresses a lack of identification, indicating that a variable points to no object.
The global undefined property represents the primitive value undefined.
undefined is a primitive value automatically assigned to variables.
undefined is meant to say that the reference is not existing.
I completely disagree that usage null or undefined is unnecessary.
undefined is thing which keeping alive whole prototype chaining process.
So compiler only with null can't check if this property just equal to null, or its not defined in endpoint prototype. In other dynamic typed languages(f.e. Python) it throws exception if you want access to not defined property, but for prototype-based languages compiler should also check parent prototypes and here are the place when undefined need most.
Whole meaning of using null is just bind variable or property with object which is singleton and have meaning of emptiness,and also null usage have performance purposes. This 2 code have difference execution time.
var p1 = function(){this.value = 1};
var big_array = new Array(100000000).fill(1).map((x, index)=>{
p = new p1();
if(index > 50000000){
p.x = "some_string";
}
return p;
});
big_array.reduce((sum, p)=> sum + p.value, 0)
var p2 = function(){this.value = 1, p.x = null};
var big_array = new Array(100000000).fill(1).map((x, index)=>{
p = new p2();
if(index > 50000000){
p.x = "some_string";
}
return p;
});
big_array.reduce((sum, p)=> sum + p.value, 0)
I'm working through this exact question right now, and looking at the following philosophy:
Any function that is intended to return a result should return null if it fails to find a result
Any function that is NOT intended to return a result implicitly returns undefined.
For me, this question is significant because anyone calling a function that returns a result should have no question as to whether to test for undefined vs null.
This answer does not attempt to address:
Property values of null vs undefined
Variables within your functions being null vs undefined
In my opinion, variables are your own business and not a part of your API, and properties in any OO system are defined and therefore should be defined with value different from what they would be if not defined (null for defined, undefined is what you get when accessing something that is not in your object).
Here's a reason: var undefined = 1 is legal javascript, but var null = 1 is a syntax error. The difference is that null is a language keyword, while undefined is, for some reason, not.
If your code relies on comparisons to undefined as if it's a keyword (if (foo == undefined) -- a very easy mistake to make) that only works because nobody has defined a variable with that name. All that code is vulnerable to someone accidentally or maliciously defining a global variable with that name. Of course, we all know that accidentally defining a global variable is totally impossible in javascript...
Just wanna add that with usage of certain javascript libraries, null and undefined can have unintended consequences.
For example, lodash's get function, which accepts a default value as a 3rd argument:
const user = {
address: {
block: null,
unit: undefined,
}
}
console.log(_.get(user, 'address.block', 'Default Value')) // prints null
console.log(_.get(user, 'address.unit', 'Default Value')) // prints 'Default Value'
console.log(_.get(user, 'address.postalCode', 'Default Value')) // prints 'Default Value'
Another example: If you use defaultProps in React, if a property is passed null, default props are not used because null is interpreted as a defined value.
e.g.
class MyComponent extends React.Component {
static defaultProps = {
callback: () => {console.log('COMPONENT MOUNTED')},
}
componentDidMount() {
this.props.callback();
}
}
//in some other component
<MyComponent /> // Console WILL print "COMPONENT MOUNTED"
<MyComponent callback={null}/> // Console will NOT print "COMPONENT MOUNTED"
<MyComponent callback={undefined}/> // Console WILL print "COMPONENT MOUNTED"
There are already some good answers here but not the one that I was looking for. null and undefined both "technically" do the same thing in terms of both being falsy, but when I read through code and I see a "null" then I'm expecting that it's a user defined null, something was explicitly set to contain no value, if I read through code and see "undefined" then I assume that it's code that was never initialized or assigned by anything. In this way code can communicate to you whether something was caused by uninitialized stuff or null values. Because of that you really shouldn't assign "undefined" manually to something otherwise it messes with the way you (or another developer) can read code. If another developer sees "undefined" they're not going to intuitively assume it's you who made it undefined, they're going to assume it's not been initialized when in fact it was. For me this is the biggest deal, when I read code I want to see what it's telling me, I don't want to guess and figure out if stuff has "actually" been initialized.
Not even to mention that using them in typescript means two different things. Using:
interface Example {
name?: string
}
Means that name can be undefined or a string, but it can't be null. If you want it null you have to explicitly use:
interface Example {
name: string | null
}
And even then you'll be forced to initialize it at least with "null".
That's of course only true if you're using "strictNullChecks": true in tsconfig.json.
Based on a recent breakage we ran into, the example below shows why I prefer to use undefined over null, unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise:
function myfunc (myArg) {
if (typeof myArg === 'string') {
console.log('a', myArg);
} else if (typeof abc === 'object') {
console.log('b', myArg);
if (myArg.id) {
console.log('myArg has an id');
} else {
console.log('myArg has an id');
}
} else {
console.log('no value');
}
}
The following values will play nicely:
'abc'
{}
undefined
{ id: 'xyz' }
On the other hand the assumption of null and undefined being equivalent here breaks the code. The reason being is that null is of type of object, where as undefined is of type undefined. So here the code breaks because you can't test for a member on null.
I have seen a large number of cases with code of similar appearance, where null is just asking for problems:
if (typeof myvar === 'string') {
console.log(myvar);
} else if (typeof myvar === 'object') {
console.log(myvar.id);
}
The fix here would be to explicitly test for null:
if (typeof myvar === 'string') {
console.log(myvar);
} else if (myvar !== null && typeof myvar === 'object') {
console.log(myvar.id);
}
My attitude is to code for the weaknesses of a language and the typical behaviours of programmers of that language, hence the philosophy here of going with 'undefined' bey default.
To write simple code you need to keep complexity and variation down. When a variable or a property on an object does not have a value it is undefined , and for a value to be null you need to assign it a null value.
Undeclared vs Null
null is both an Object "type" and one of the 7 unique primitive value types called null
undefined is both a global scope property and type called undefined and one of the 7 unique primitive value types called undefined (window.undefined) .
It is the primitive types we use as values we are interested in.
In the case of null, as a value type it means an empty value has been assigned to a variable, but the variable type (Number, String, etc) is still defined. It just has no value. That is what null means. It means a variable has an empty value but it is still a value. It also reinitializes the variable with some kind of value, but is not undefined as a type.
undefined is a special case. When you declare a variable (or use a missing value not yet declared) it is of type undefined, as the browser does not know what type of data has been assigned to it yet. If the variable is declared but not assigned a value is is assigned the primitive calue undefined by default prior to assigning a value, and implies the variable does not exist or exists but has no value assigned.
Like null, undefined is also a primitive value type. But unlike null it means the variable does not exist, where null means the value does not exist. That is why its always better to check if the variable exists and has been assigned a variable using undefined before checking if the value is null or empty. undefined implies no variable or object exists in the compilation at all. The variable has either not been declared or declared with a missing value so not initialized. So checking for undefined is a very good way to avoid many types of errors in JavaScript and supersedes null.
That is why I would not rely on "truthy" checks for true/false with null and undefined, even though they will both return a false response, as undefined implies an additional step for missing feature, object, or variable, not just a true/false check. It implies something more. If you have a missing undeclared variable, truthy statements will trigger an ERROR!
Let's look at undefined first:
//var check1;// variable doesnt even exist so not assigned to "undefined"
var check2;// variable declared but not initialized so assigned "undefined"
var check3 = 'hello world';// variable has a value so not undefined
console.log('What is undefined?');
//console.log(check1 === undefined);// ERROR! check1 does not exist yet so not assigned undefined!
console.log(check2 === undefined);// True
console.log(check3 === undefined);// False
console.log(typeof check1 === 'undefined');// True - stops the ERROR!
console.log(typeof check2 === 'undefined');// True
console.log(typeof check3 === 'undefined');// False
As you can see undeclared variables, or declared but not initialized, both are assigned a type of undefined. Notice declared variables that are not initialized are assigned a value of undefined, the primitive value type but variables that do not exist are undefined types.
null has nothing to do with missing variables or variables not yet assigned values, as null is still a value. So anything with a null is already declared and initialized. Also notice a variable assigned a null value is actually an object type unlike undefined types. For example...
var check4 = null;
var check5 = 'hello world';
console.log('What is null?');
console.log(check4 === undefined);// False
console.log(check5 === undefined);// False
console.log(typeof check4 === 'undefined');// False
console.log(typeof check5 === 'undefined');// False
console.log(typeof check4);// return 'object'
console.log(typeof check5);// return 'string'
As you can see each act differently and yet both are primitive values you can assign any variable. Just understand they represent different states of variables and objects.

Is there a jQuery construct for "if (typeof someVar === 'undefined')"

Does jQuery provide a way to to that test in a more concise way?
Update
I should have left jQuery out of this. It is just an issue of JavaScript. It's been so long for me! I am testing to see is something externally-defined module was loaded or not. It appears that I can just use this instead:
if (window.someVar)
Please correct me if this is a bad practice. In my case, if someVar is defined, it will be an object. It will not be defined to false.
This answer must be at least 30 characters and the answer is: No.
If it is acceptable in your code to consider null and undefined to be equal, you could avoid the typeof by doing an == test on null, which will also be true for undefined.
if( someVar == null ) {
// it was either null or undefined
}
(function(params, undefined) {
// ...
if (someVar === undefined) {
...
}
...
window.SomethingGlobal = SomethingGlobal;
}(params));
You can set declare undefined as a variable in your function. If that paramater is not passed in then you can garantuee it has the value of undefined.
It is always best to use closures like this to create a unique scope. If you need to hoist anything to global scope set it on the window manually.
Alternatively this will work:
if (someVar = void 0) {
...
}
void is a funny command. It expects an expression, It runs the expression and always returns undefined rather then the return value of the expression.
There's no real way to make that more concise. Since that code tests if the variable someVar is declared, the only safe use of the name someVar is as the operand to typeof (all other uses will raise an error if the variable is not declared).
I guess you could make the rest of the expression somewhat shorter by using a function:
function isUndefined(type)
{
return type === 'undefined';
}
if (isUndefined(typeof someVar)) {
// ...
}
But that's probably not worth the trouble.
As long as the 'big varity' of typeof includes such 'genius'*ionically* thing like object you may consider about this cheat:
typeof someVar >= 'u'ndefine
that will quicken stringcompare but decreases readability and cleanness of your code.
However short is beautify and maybe it's good to remind by that there is such a thing like the >=and =<-operator for strings that is often forgotten and so not used. ;)

Categories

Resources