I'm using jQuery and I have a strange thing that I don't understand. I have some code:
for (i = 1; i <= some_number; i++) {
$("#some_button" + i).click(function() {
alert(i);
});
}
"#some_button" as the name says - they are some buttons. When clicked they should pop-up a box with it's number, correct? But they don't. If there is 4 buttons, they always pop-up "5" (buttons count + 1). Why is that so?
It has to do with JavaScript scoping. You can get around it easily by introducing another scope by adding a function and having that function call itself and pass in i:
for (var i = 1; i <= some_number; i++) {
(function(j) {
$("#some_button" + j).click(function() {
alert(j);
});
})(i);
}
This creates a closure - when the inner function has access to a scope that no longer exists when the function is called. See this article on the MDC for more information.
EDIT: RE: Self-calling functions: A self-calling function is a function that calls itself anonymously. You don't instantiate it nor do you assign it to a variable. It takes the following form (note the opening parens):
(function(args) {
// function body that might modify args
})(args_to_pass_in);
Relating this to the question, the body of the anonymous function would be:
$("#some_button" + j).click(function() {
alert(j);
});
Combining these together, we get the answer in the first code block. The anonymous self-calling function is expecting an argument called j. It looks for any element with an id of some_button with the integer value of j at the end (e.g. some_button1, some_button10). Any time one of these elements is clicked, it alerts the value of j. The second-to-last line of the solution passes in the value i, which is the loop counter where the anonymous self-calling function is called. Done another way, it might look like this:
var innerFunction = function(j) {
$("#some_button" + j).click(function() {
alert(j);
});
};
for (var i = 1; i <= some_number; i++) {
innerFunction(i);
}
You are having a very common closure problem in the for loop.
Variables enclosed in a closure share the same single environment, so by the time the click callback is called, the loop will have run its course and the i variable will be left pointing to the last entry.
You can solve this with even more closures, using a function factory:
function makeOnClickCallback(i) {
return function() {
alert(i);
};
}
var i;
for (i = 0; i < some_number; i++) {
$("#some_button" + i).click(makeOnClickCallback(i));
}
This can be quite a tricky topic, if you are not familiar with how closures work. You may to check out the following Mozilla article for a brief introduction:
Working with Closures
Because in the moment you click them, i == 5.
This is because of how closures work in JavaScript. Each of the 5 functions you are creating is basically sharing the same i variable. The value of i inside your function is not being evaluated when you are creating the function, but when the click event occurs, by which time the value of i is 5.
There are various techniques for getting around this (when this behavior isn't what you want). One (if you have a simple function, like you do here) is to use the Function constructor instead of a function literal:
$("#some_button" + i).click(new Function("alert("+i+")");
(function (some_number) {
for (i = 1; i <= some_number; i++) {
$("#some_button" + i).click(function() {
alert(i);
});
}
})(some_number);
Wrap the function outside because for speed and the fact i will keep resetting.
This is very clever code. So clever it's a question on SO. :) I'd sidestep the question altogether by dumbing the code down, just to have a chance at understanding it (or having a colleague understand it) six months from now. Closures have their place, but in this case I'd avoid them in favour of more understandable code.
Probably, I'd attach the same function to all the buttons, which would get the button from the event, strip "some_button" from the ID, and alert the result. Not nearly as pretty, but I guarantee everyone in the office could follow it at a glance.
Related
Closures in a loop are causing me problems. I think I have to make another function that returns a function to solve the problem, but I can't get it to work with my jQuery code.
Here is the basic problem in a simplified form:
function foo(val) {
alert(val);
}
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
$('#button'+i).click(function(){
foo(i);
});
}
Naturally clicking on any of the three buttons will give an alert saying 3. The functionality I want is that clicking on button 1 will give an alert saying 1, button 2 will say 2 etc.
How can I make it do that?
See the bind method.
$('#button'+i).bind('click', {button: i}, function(event) {
foo(event.data.button);
});
From the docs:
The optional eventData parameter is
not commonly used. When provided, this
argument allows us to pass additional
information to the handler. One handy
use of this parameter is to work
around issues caused by closures
Try this code:
function foo(val) {
alert(val);
}
var funMaker = function(k) {
return function() {
foo(k);
};
};
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
$('#button'+i).click(funMaker(i));
}
Some important points here:
JavaScript is function scoped. If you want a new ('deeper') scope, you need to create a function to hold it.
This solution is Javascript specific, it works with or without jQuery.
The solution works because each value of i is copied in a new scope as k, and the function returned from funMaker closes around k (which doesn't change in the loop), not around i (which does).
Your code doesn't work because the function that you pass to click doesn't 'own' the i, it closes over the i of its creator, and that i changes in the loop.
The example could have been written with funMaker inlined, but I usually use such helper functions to make things clearer.
The argument of funMaker is k, but that makes no difference, it could have been i without any problems, since it exists in the scope of the function funMaker.
One of the clearest explanation of the 'Environment' evaluation model is found in 'Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs', by Sussman & Abelson (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ full text available online, not an easy read) - see section 3.2. Since JavaScript is really Scheme with C syntax, that explanation is OK.
EDIT: Fixed some punctuation.
#Andy solution is the nicest. But you can also use Javascript scoping to help you save the value in your closure.
You do so by creating a new scope in your loop body by executing an anonymous function.
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
(function(){
var index = i;
$('#button'+index).click(function(){
foo(index);
});
})();
}
Since the loop body is a new scope at each iteration, the index variable is duplicated with the correct value at each iteration.
Use the .each function from jquery - I guess you a looping through similar elements - so add the click using something like:
$(element).children(class).each(function(i){
$(this).click(function(){
foo(i);
});
});
Not tested but I always use this kind structure where possible.
Or just manufacture a new function, as you describe. It would look like this:
function foo(val) {
return function() {
alert(val);
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
$('#button'+i).click(foo(i));
}
I'm pretty sure Mehrdad's solution doesn't work. When you see people copying to a temporary variable, it's usually to save the value of "this" which may be different within an inner child scope.
This code is supposed to pop up an alert with the number of the image when you click it:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
You can see it not working at http://jsfiddle.net/upFaJ/. I know that this is because all of the click-handler closures are referring to the same object i, so every single handler pops up "10" when it's triggered.
However, when I do this, it works fine:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
}
You can see it working at http://jsfiddle.net/v4sSD/.
Why does it work? There's still only one i object in memory, right? Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference. The output of the two code snippets should be identical. So why is the i object being copied 10 times? Why does it work?
I think it's interesting that this version doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
(function () {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
})();
}
It seems that the passing of the object as a function parameter makes all the difference.
EDIT: OK, so the previous example can be explained by primitives (i) being passed by value to the function call. But what about this example, which uses real objects?
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Not working: http://jsfiddle.net/Zpwku/
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
(function (t) {
t.click(function () { t.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(t);
})(toggler);
}
Working: http://jsfiddle.net/YLSn6/
Most of the answers are correct in that passing an object as a function parameter breaks a closure and thus allow us to assign things to functions from within a loop. But I'd like to point out why this is the case, and it's not just a special case for closures.
You see, the way javascript passes parameters to functions is a bit different form other languages. Firstly, it seems to have two ways of doing it depending on weather it's a primitive value or an object. For primitive values it seems to pass by value and for objects it seems to pass by reference.
How javascript passes function arguments
Actually, the real explanation of what javascript does explains both situations, as well as why it breaks closures, using just a single mechanism.
What javascript does is actually it passes parameters by copy of reference. That is to say, it creates another reference to the parameter and passes that new reference into the function.
Pass by value?
Assume that all variables in javascript are references. In other languages, when we say a variable is a reference, we expect it to behave like this:
var i = 1;
function increment (n) { n = n+1 };
increment(i); // we would expect i to be 2 if i is a reference
But in javascript, it's not the case:
console.log(i); // i is still 1
That's a classic pass by value isn't it?
Pass by reference?
But wait, for objects it's a different story:
var o = {a:1,b:2}
function foo (x) {
x.c = 3;
}
foo(o);
If parameters were passed by value we'd expect the o object to be unchanged but:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
That's classic pass by reference there. So we have two behaviors depending on weather we're passing a primitive type or an object.
Wait, what?
But wait a second, check this out:
var o = {a:1,b:2,c:3}
function bar (x) {
x = {a:2,b:4,c:6}
}
bar(o);
Now see what happens:
console.log(o); // outputs {a:1,b:2,c:3}
What! That's not passing by reference! The values are unchanged!
Which is why I call it pass by copy of reference. If we think about it this way, everything makes sense. We don't need to think of primitives as having special behavior when passed into a function because objects behave the same way. If we try to modify the object the variable points to then it works like pass by reference but if we try to modify the reference itself then it works like pass by value.
This also explains why closures are broken by passing a variable as a function parameter. Because the function call will create another reference that is not bound by the closure like the original variable.
Epilogue: I lied
One more thing before we end this. I said before that this unifies the behavior of primitive types and objects. Actually no, primitive types are still different:
var i = 1;
function bat (n) { n.hello = 'world' };
bat(i);
console.log(i.hello); // undefined, i is unchanged
I give up. There's no making sense of this. It's just the way it is.
It's because you are calling a function, passing it a value.
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
alert(i);
}
You expect this to alert different values, right? Because you are passing the current value of i to alert.
function attachClick(val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
}
With this function, you'd expect it to alert whatever val was passed into it, right? That also works when calling it in a loop:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
attachClick(i);
}
This:
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
(function (val) {
$("#img" + val).click(
function () { alert(val); }
);
})(i);
}
is just an inline declaration of the above. You are declaring an anonymous function with the same characteristics as attachClick above and you call it immediately. The act of passing a value through a function parameter breaks any references to the i variable.
upvoted deceze's answer, but thought I'd try a simpler explanation. The reason the closure works is that variables in javascript are function scoped. The closure creates a new scope, and by passing the value of i in as a parameter, you are defining a local variable i in the new scope. without the closure, all of the click handlers you define are in the same scope, using the same i. the reason that your last code snippet doesn't work is because there is no local i, so all click handlers are looking to the nearest parent context with i defined.
I think the other thing that might be confusing you is this comment
Objects are always passed by reference, not copied, so the self-executing function call should make no difference.
this is true for objects, but not primitive values (numbers, for example). This is why a new local i can be defined. To demonstrate, if you did something weird like wrapping the value of i in an array, the closure would not work, because arrays are passed by reference.
// doesn't work
for(var i=[0]; i[0]<10; i[0]++) {
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2[0]).click(
function () { alert(i2[0]); }
);
})(i);
}
In the first example, there is only one value of i and it's the one used in the for loop. This, all event handlers will show the value of i when the for loop ends, not the desired value.
In the second example, the value of i at the time the event handler is installed is copied to the i2 function argument and there is a separate copy of that for each invocation of the function and thus for each event handler.
So, this:
(function (i2) {
$("#img" + i2).click(
function () { alert(i2); }
);
})(i);
Creates a new variable i2 that has it's own value for each separate invocation of the function. Because of closures in javascript, each separate copy of i2 is preserved for each separate event handler - thus solving your problem.
In the third example, no new copy of i is made (they all refer to the same i from the for loop) so it works the same as the first example.
Code 1 and Code 3 didn't work because i is a variable and values are changed in each loop. At the end of loop 10 will be assigned to i.
For more clear, take a look at this example,
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
}
alert(i)
http://jsfiddle.net/muthkum/t4Ur5/
You can see I put a alert after the loop and it will show show alert box with value 10.
This is what happening to Code 1 and Code 3.
Run the next example:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) {
$("#img" + i).click(
function () { alert(i); }
);
}
i++;
You'll see that now, 11 is being alerted.
Therefore, you need to avoid the reference to i, by sending it as a function parameter, by it's value. You have already found the solution.
One thing that the other answers didn't mention is why this example that I gave in the question doesn't work:
for(var i=0; i<5; i++) {
var toggler = $("<img/>", { "src": "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/cross.png" });
toggler.click(function () { toggler.attr("src", "http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/tick.png"); });
$("#container").append(toggler);
}
Coming back to the question months later with a better understanding of JavaScript, the reason it doesn't work can be understood as follows:
The var toggler declaration is hoisted to the top of the function call. All references to toggler are to the same actual identifier.
The closure referenced in the anonymous function is the same (not a shallow copy) of the one containing toggler, which is being updated for each iteration of the loop.
#2 is quite surprising. This alerts "5" for example:
var o;
setTimeout(function () { o = {value: 5}; }, 100);
setTimeout(function () { alert(o.value) }, 1000);
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What is the purpose of a self executing function in javascript?
Hopefully quite a straight forward question:
What is the purpose of using self invoking anonymous functions? Is it simply to prevent "polluting" the global scope with variables etc.? Or are there other advantages to using them?
Out of my personal experience, other than using anonymous functions for inducing a scope, I have also used it in for-loops for closure. This can be useful when a DOM element needs to store its count and you don't have access to libraries like jQuery etc.
Let's say you have a 100 DIV elements. Clicking the first DIV element should alert 1, similarly clicking the 56th div element should alert 56.
So when creating these elements, you normally do something like this
// Assume myElements is a collection of the aforementioned div elements
for (var i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
myElements[i].onclick = function() {
alert( 'You clicked on: ' + i );
};
}
This will alert 99, as the counter is currently 99. The value of i is not maintained here.
However, when an anonymous function is used to tackle the problem,
for (var i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
(function(count){
myElements[count].onclick = function() {
alert( 'You clicked on: ' + count );
};
})(i);
}
Here the value of i is maintained and the correct count is displayed.
Is it simply to prevent "polluting" the global scope with variables etc.?
Pretty much. Encapsulation and avoiding as much global state as possible are good goals in themselves.
It is to create its own scope. It is not only better because you no longer "pollute" some other (global, for example) scope, it gives you guaranteed escape for name collision concerns and defense from programmers that like to poke inside internals of your functions/objects/methods too much among all the benefits. It also allows GC to easily understand that you don't need any of referenced objects anymore when function is done.
Closures in for-loops also use self invoking anonymous functions.
function attachEventsToListItems( ) {
var oList = document.getElementById('myList');
var aListItems = oList.getElementsByTagName('li');
for(var i = 0; i < aListItems.length; i++) {
var oListItem = aListItems[i];
// Watch this:
oListItem.onclick = (function(value) {
return function() {
alert(value);
}
})(i);
}
}
I read the () at the end of the closure will execute it immediately. So, what is the difference between these two. I saw the first usage in some code.
thanks.
for (var a=selectsomeobj(),i=0,len=a.length;i<len;++i){
(function(val){
anotherFn(val);
})(a[i]);
}
for (var a=selectsomeobj(),i=0,len=a.length;i<len;++i){
anotherFn(a[i]);
}
In this example there are no differences. In both cases, anotherFn gets executed immediately.
However, an immediate function is often used when a function is created in a loop.
Consider this example (more or less pseudo code):
for(var i from 1..10) {
elements[i].onclick = function() {
alert(values[i]);
}
}
As JavaScript has only function scope, no block scope, all the event handlers share the same i, which will have the value 10 after the loop finished. So every handler will try to alert values[10].
By using an immediate function, a new scope is introduced which "captures" the current value of the loop variable:
for(var i from 1..10) {
(function(index) {
elements[i].onclick = function() {
alert(values[index]);
}
}(i));
}
As this is sometimes hard to read, creating a standalone function which returns another function is often better:
function getHandler(value) {
return function(){alert(value);};
}
for(var i from 1..10) {
elements[i].onclick = getHandler(values[i]);
}
In both instances in your example the values do identical operations. There are other examples out there where if you're not careful to use the first method (with the self-executing anonymous function), the value of i will increment and not be passed correctly to your function.
Here's a guide, scroll down to the creating closures in loops: a common mistake section to see the problem:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Guide/Closures
the first defines a self-invoking function (which in turn executes a function), the second just executes the function. In both cases the argument passed to the is a[i].
This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm relatively new to JS so this may be a common problem, but I noticed something strange when dealing with for loops and the onclick function. I was able to replicate the problem with this code:
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript">
window.onload = function () {
var buttons = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
for (var i=0; i<2; i++) {
buttons[i].onclick = function () {
alert(i);
return false;
}
}
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
hi
<br />
bye
</body>
</html>
When clicking the links I would expect to get '0' and '1', but instead I get '2' for both of them. Why is this?
BTW, I managed to solve my particular problem by using the 'this' keyword, but I'm still curious as to what is behind this behavior.
You are having a very common closure problem in the for loop.
Variables enclosed in a closure share the same single environment, so by the time the onclick callback is executed, the loop has run its course and the i variable will be left pointing to the last entry.
You can solve this with even more closures, using a function factory:
function makeOnClickCallback(i) {
return function() {
alert(i);
return false;
};
}
var i;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
buttons[i].onclick = makeOnClickCallback(i);
}
This can be quite a tricky topic, if you are not familiar with how closures work. You may to check out the following Mozilla article for a brief introduction:
Working with Closures
Note: I would also suggest not to use var inside the for loop, because this may trick you in believing that the i variable has block scope, when on the other hand the i variable is just like the buttons variable, scoped within the function.
You need to store the state of the i variable, because by the time the event fires, the scoped state of i has increased to the maximum loop count.
window.onload = function () {
var buttons = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
for (var i=0; i<2; i++) {
(function (i) {
buttons[i].onclick = function () {
alert(i);
return false;
}
})(i);
}
}
The above example creates an anonymous function with a single argument i, which is then called with i being passed as that argument. This creates a new variable in a separate scope, saving the value as it was at the time of that particular iteration.
It's a order of execution issue
How to assign event callbacks iterating an array in javascript (jQuery)
Basically, the click handler accesses i well after the loop has exited, and therefore i is equal to 2.