I essentially have an object:
var foo = function() {
this.setting = false;
this.refresh = function() { ... };
}
let a = new foo();
a.setting = true; // a.refresh() is triggered
I need to trigger refresh anytime .setting is written to. I feel like it has something to do with bind, but I couldn't quite get it.
You could use JavaScript getters and setters. See the MDC documentation on the subject and John Resig's blog post on the subject. Note that not all browsers support this.
var Foo = function()//constructor
{
this._settings = false;//hidden variable by convention
this.__defineGetter__("settings", function(){
return _settings;//now foo.settings will give you the value in the hidden var
});
this.__defineSetter__("settings", function(s){
_settings = s;//set the hidden var with foo.settings = x
this.refresh();//trigger refresh when that happens
});
this.refresh = function(){
alert("Refreshed!");//for testing
}
}
var a = new Foo();//create new object
a.settings = true;//change the property
//a.refresh() is triggered
Try it!
You need to use a getter and a setter for your object. One way is to use getter/setter functions directly:
var foo = function()
{
this.setting = false;
this.getSetting = function() { return this.setting; }
this.setSetting = function(val) { this.setting = val; this.refresh(); }
this.refresh = function()
{...}
}
If you want to use foo.setting transparently as an attribute, there are language constructs for that, but unfortunately they are not interoperable across browsers. In somewhat of a throwback to 3 years ago, there's one method supported by Mozilla, Safari, Chrome and Opera and another method for Internet Explorer. This is the standard method:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/05/28/getters-and-setters-with-javascript-code-samples-and-demos/
IE9 has something else, and I'm not sure if it even works for non-DOM objects.
Are you looking for a setting setter? Something like this?
// renamed settings property with underscore
this._settings = false;
this.settings = function(s) {
if(s !== undefined) {
this._settings = s;
this.refresh();
}
return this._settings;
};
...
var f = new foo();
f.setSettings(mySettings);
I tend to combine my getter and setter into one method in JavaScript since it's so easy to do. The downside to this is _settings is still public on your object and anyone can directly write to it. The only way to hide it is to use a closure, which requires a totally different approach to creating your objects.
If you aren't limited with old browsers you may try to use the approach described here
I don't why you are trying to use the "new" operator, you will be better using the object literal. Now, if you are looking similar to, let's say, C# properties, you could do something like this:
var myObject = function(){
//Private Members
var myProperty = '';
//Privileged Setter
this.setMyProperty = function(value){
myProperty = value;
};
//Privileged Getter
this.getMyProperty = function(){
return myProperty;
}
}
var MyNewObject = new myObject();
MyNewObject.setMyProperty("Hello, World!");
MyNewObject.getMyProperty();
For more info, I recommend this: http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html
I know this is an old question that has already been answered, but I'd like to provide a solution that takes advantage of JavaScript's latest syntax.
Define a class with a getter and setter:
class Foo {
constructor() {
this._setting = false;
}
get setting() {
return this._setting;
}
set setting(value) {
this._setting = value;
this.refresh();
}
refresh() {
console.log("refresh!");
}
}
let foo = new Foo();
foo.setting = true; // foo.refresh() is called
Related
I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?
You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();
Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X
Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5
function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);
I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)
#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.
So there has been much discussion on the topic of accessing private members inside of prototype methods. The thought occurred to me that the following should work:
function Test(){
var private = "Private";
this.instance = function(){
return private;
};
Test.prototype.getPrivate = function(){
return private;
};
}
var test1 = new Test();
var test2 = new Test();
console.log(test1.instance === test2.instance); // false
console.log(test1.getPrivate === test2.getPrivate); // true
Turns out it does, in fact, work. I'm concerned, however, that there might be a drawback to doing this.
So my question is: Is there a drawback?
This doesn't work the way you probably expect, as test1's getPrivate() gets test2's private.
function Test(value){
var private = value;
this.instance = function(){ return private; };
Test.prototype.getPrivate = function(){
return private;
};
}
var test1 = new Test("test1");
var test2 = new Test("test2");
console.log(test1.getPrivate()); // test2
console.log(test2.getPrivate()); // test2
so it really doesn't matter if it is inefficient as it doesn't work.
I believe you did make a mistake in defining the prototype function inside of the function itself. This way everytime an instance is generated the prototype method available to all instances is overwritten ... that's the strange thing you're seeing I guess.
function Test(param){
var private = param;
this._getPrivate = function(){
return private;
};
}
Test.prototype.getPrivate = function(){
return this.instance();
};
var test1 = new Test("One");
var test2 = new Test(2);
console.log(test1.getPrivate());
console.log(test2.getPrivate());
This one works as expected.
But then, I don't understand what you need the prototype function for ... if you just defined the closure as a member-function, like you do (adding it to this instead of making it local), you get the same syntax as with using prototype. Hmmm, don't quite get what you intended - could it be you were just playing around with prototype?? gg
But then, if you're interested in accessing properties have a look at this code (EcmaScript 5 defineProperty) I took out of the - methinks - amazing prototypal tool (that comes without Prototypes drawbacks) Sugar ... (they actually use it to enable Events on PropertyChange! How very cool, anyway, doesn't work in legacy browsers <-> ES 5!)
Object.defineProperty(myObj, MyProp, {
'enumerable' : true,
'configurable': true,
'get': function() {
return value;
},
'set': function(to) {
value = calculateSomething(to);
}
});
there are plenty of similar questions out there about calling functions by name dynamically. However, I can't find a solution to my specific problem where I have local functions inside a closure without exposing the functions to the public interface of my object.
Lets see some code (this is a fictional example)...
(function(window,$) {
MyObject = (function($) {
var obj = {};
obj.publicMethod = function(number,otherarg) {
this['privateMethod'+number].apply(this,[otherarg]);
};
var privateMethod1 = function(arg) {
//do something with arg
};
var privateMethod2 = function(arg) {
//do something else with arg
};
return obj;
})($);
window.MyObject = MyObject;
})(window,jQuery);
This doesn't work because "this" is MyObject and the local functions are not exposed.
Also I'd like to be able to check if the function exists before trying to call it.
eg.
var func_name = 'privateMethod'+number;
if($.isFunction(this[func_name])) {
this[func_name].apply(this,[otherarg]);
}
I'm not really sure how to proceed, short of exposing my private functions to the public interface, it all works then.
obj.privateMethod1 = function(arg) {
//do something with arg
};
obj.privateMethod2 = function(arg) {
//do something else with arg
};
I'm running out of ideas. Your help and advise is greatly appreciated.
The private functions are local variables and not part of any object. So, the [...] notation for accessing a property is never going to work since there is no object the private functions are properties of.
Instead, you could make two objects: private and public:
var public = {},
private = {};
public.publicMethod = function(number, otherarg) {
// `.apply` with a fixed array can be replaced with `.call`
private['privateMethod' + number].call(this, otherarg);
};
private.privateMethod1 = function(arg) {
//do something with arg
};
private.privateMethod2 = function(arg) {
//do something else with arg
};
return public; // expose public, but not private
You cannot get a reference to a local variable by a string. You have to add the local objects to a namespace:
(function(window,$) {
// Use "var MyObject = " instead of "MyObject = "!! Otherwise, you're assigning
// the object to the closest parent declaration of MyVar, instead of locally!
var MyObject = (function($) {
var obj = {};
var local = {}; // <-- Local namespace
obj.publicMethod = function(number,otherarg) {
local['privateMethod'+number].call(this, otherarg);
};
var privateMethod1 = local.privateMethod1 = function(arg) {
//do something with arg
};
var privateMethod2 = local.privateMethod2 = function(arg) {
//do something else with arg
};
return obj;
})($);
window.MyObject = MyObject;
})(window,jQuery);
I'm surprised that incorrect answer is marked as accepted. Actually you CAN get a reference to a local variable by a string. Just by using eval:
(function(window,$) {
MyObject = (function($) {
var obj = {};
obj.publicMethod = function(number,otherarg) {
// Gets reference to a local variable
var method = eval('privateMethod'+number);
// Do with it whatever you want
method.apply(this,[otherarg]);
};
var privateMethod1 = function(arg) {
//do something with arg
};
var privateMethod2 = function(arg) {
//do something else with arg
};
return obj;
})($);
window.MyObject = MyObject;
})(window,jQuery);
Actually this code is very bad and in 99.9% cases you should not use eval. But you must know how it works and what you can do with it. I myself had a few very specific cases when usage of eval was necessary.
The fact that you cannot call these functions from outside of the scope within which they are defined is a fundamental part of javascript, and indeed, all programming languages.
The only way to call these functions is to make them public. A convention based approach can be applied instead however. The underscore prefix is fairly ubiquitous and generally understood to mean "not intended to be called as a public function" eg:
obj._privateMethod1 = function(arg) {
//...
};
Assuming you only have a couple of functions to call, you can create your own version of Window to use to call the functions:
var myFuncs = {
'foo': foo,
'bar': bar
};
Then in your code:
var s = 'foo';
myFuncs[s]();
Just make sure the functions are defined when you add them to the object. In a module where the functions don't exist at load time, you can add them when the module is initialized:
var myFuncs = {};
var init = function(){
myFuncs['foo'] = foo;
myFuncs['bar'] = bar;
}
The code below is adapted from this answer
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
var errorA = new ErrorMessageClass();
var errorB = new ErrorMessageClass();
errorA.setPrivate('A');
errorB.setPrivate('B');
console.log(errorA.getPrivate());
console.log(errorB.getPrivate());
The original post did not have the MessageClass.apply(this, arguments); since the purpose was to show how inheritance can go wrong in Javascript.
My question is, is saying: ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass(); before the ErrorMessageClass constructor has even been declared bad practice? My understanding is that calling undeclared identifiers like that causes a silent declaration to occur, with the result being placed on the global window object, which I understand is bad.
Is this form:
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
considered to be better practice? This link shows the code written as it was originally above, which is why I even tried it. Does this blogger know something I don't (quite likely)?
EDIT
Lots of great info in the answers below, but I did want to highlight this link which really explains things perfectly
Usually, to avoid this confusion, you would just attach the prototype after, but as Adam Rackis pointed out, function declarations are hoisted, like var statements.
However, you should not instantiate the base object as the prototype. If your base object takes arguments, what are you supposed to use? Use an empty "surrogate" constructor
// Used to setup inheritance
function surrogate () {};
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
// The key steps to creating clean inheritance
surrogate.prototype = MessageClass;
// Sets up inheritance without instantiating a base class object
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new surrogate();
// Fix the constructor property
ErrorMessageClass.prototype.constructor = ErrorMessageClass
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
There's much more to be said. http://js-bits.blogspot.com/2010/08/javascript-inheritance-done-right.html
It works because function declarations are evaluated first. If you tried to move these classes under an object literal "namespace" the first version would fail.
I personally find the second method to be much easier to read - also, don't forget to set the sub-class' prototype.constructor property back to itself. Personally, I use an inherits() method on the Function prototype which wraps up essentially the type of code you're using here.
I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?
You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();
Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X
Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5
function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);
I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)
#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.