Related
Currently in ES5 many of us are using the following pattern in frameworks to create classes and class variables, which is comfy:
// ES 5
FrameWork.Class({
variable: 'string',
variable2: true,
init: function(){
},
addItem: function(){
}
});
In ES6 you can create classes natively, but there is no option to have class variables:
// ES6
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string'; // <-- this is not possible in ES6
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Sadly, the above won't work, as classes only can contain methods.
I understand that I can this.myVar = true in constructor…but I don't want to 'junk' my constructor, especially when I have 20-30+ params for a bigger class.
I was thinking of many ways to handle this issue, but haven't yet found any good ones. (For example: create a ClassConfig handler, and pass a parameter object, which is declared separately from the class. Then the handler would attach to the class. I was thinking about WeakMaps also to integrate, somehow.)
What kind of ideas would you have to handle this situation?
2018 update:
There is now a stage 3 proposal - I am looking forward to make this answer obsolete in a few months.
In the meantime anyone using TypeScript or babel can use the syntax:
varName = value
Inside a class declaration/expression body and it will define a variable. Hopefully in a few months/weeks I'll be able to post an update.
Update: Chrome 74 now ships with this syntax working.
The notes in the ES wiki for the proposal in ES6 (maximally minimal classes) note:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration.
Properties specified in a class definition are assigned the same attributes as if they appeared in an object literal.
This means that what you're asking for was considered, and explicitly decided against.
but... why?
Good question. The good people of TC39 want class declarations to declare and define the capabilities of a class. Not its members. An ES6 class declaration defines its contract for its user.
Remember, a class definition defines prototype methods - defining variables on the prototype is generally not something you do.
You can, of course use:
constructor(){
this.foo = bar
}
In the constructor like you suggested. Also see the summary of the consensus.
ES7 and beyond
A new proposal for ES7 is being worked on that allows more concise instance variables through class declarations and expressions - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/es7-property-initializers
Just to add to Benjamin's answer — class variables are possible, but you wouldn't use prototype to set them.
For a true class variable you'd want to do something like the following:
class MyClass {}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
From within a class method that variable can be accessed as this.constructor.foo (or MyClass.foo).
These class properties would not usually be accessible from to the class instance. i.e. MyClass.foo gives 'bar' but new MyClass().foo is undefined
If you want to also have access to your class variable from an instance, you'll have to additionally define a getter:
class MyClass {
get foo() {
return this.constructor.foo;
}
}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
I've only tested this with Traceur, but I believe it will work the same in a standard implementation.
JavaScript doesn't really have classes. Even with ES6 we're looking at an object- or prototype-based language rather than a class-based language. In any function X () {}, X.prototype.constructor points back to X.
When the new operator is used on X, a new object is created inheriting X.prototype. Any undefined properties in that new object (including constructor) are looked up from there. We can think of this as generating object and class properties.
Babel supports class variables in ESNext, check this example:
class Foo {
bar = 2
static iha = 'string'
}
const foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo.bar, foo.iha, Foo.bar, Foo.iha);
// 2, undefined, undefined, 'string'
In your example:
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string';
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Because of MY_CONST is primitive https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive we can just do:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
return 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
But if MY_CONST is reference type like static get MY_CONST() {return ['string'];} alert output is string, false. In such case delete operator can do the trick:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
And finally for class variable not const:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
static set U_YIN_YANG(value) {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
MyClass.MY_CONST = value;
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
set MY_CONST(value) {
this.constructor.MY_CONST = value;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, true
MyClass.MY_CONST = ['string, 42']
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, 42 ; true
Since your issue is mostly stylistic (not wanting to fill up the constructor with a bunch of declarations) it can be solved stylistically as well.
The way I view it, many class based languages have the constructor be a function named after the class name itself. Stylistically we could use that that to make an ES6 class that stylistically still makes sense but does not group the typical actions taking place in the constructor with all the property declarations we're doing. We simply use the actual JS constructor as the "declaration area", then make a class named function that we otherwise treat as the "other constructor stuff" area, calling it at the end of the true constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
// only declare your properties and then call this.ClassName(); from here
constructor(){
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
this.MyClass();
}
// all sorts of other "constructor" stuff, no longer jumbled with declarations
MyClass() {
doWhatever();
}
}
Both will be called as the new instance is constructed.
Sorta like having 2 constructors where you separate out the declarations and the other constructor actions you want to take, and stylistically makes it not too hard to understand that's what is going on too.
I find it's a nice style to use when dealing with a lot of declarations and/or a lot of actions needing to happen on instantiation and wanting to keep the two ideas distinct from each other.
NOTE: I very purposefully do not use the typical idiomatic ideas of "initializing" (like an init() or initialize() method) because those are often used differently. There is a sort of presumed difference between the idea of constructing and initializing. Working with constructors people know that they're called automatically as part of instantiation. Seeing an init method many people are going to assume without a second glance that they need to be doing something along the form of var mc = MyClass(); mc.init();, because that's how you typically initialize. I'm not trying to add an initialization process for the user of the class, I'm trying to add to the construction process of the class itself.
While some people may do a double-take for a moment, that's actually the bit of the point: it communicates to them that the intent is part of construction, even if that makes them do a bit of a double take and go "that's not how ES6 constructors work" and take a second looking at the actual constructor to go "oh, they call it at the bottom, I see", that's far better than NOT communicating that intent (or incorrectly communicating it) and probably getting a lot of people using it wrong, trying to initialize it from the outside and junk. That's very much intentional to the pattern I suggest.
For those that don't want to follow that pattern, the exact opposite can work too. Farm the declarations out to another function at the beginning. Maybe name it "properties" or "publicProperties" or something. Then put the rest of the stuff in the normal constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
properties() {
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
}
constructor() {
this.properties();
doWhatever();
}
}
Note that this second method may look cleaner but it also has an inherent problem where properties gets overridden as one class using this method extends another. You'd have to give more unique names to properties to avoid that. My first method does not have this problem because its fake half of the constructor is uniquely named after the class.
As Benjamin said in his answer, TC39 explicitly decided not to include this feature at least for ES2015. However, the consensus seems to be that they will add it in ES2016.
The syntax hasn't been decided yet, but there's a preliminary proposal for ES2016 that will allow you to declare static properties on a class.
Thanks to the magic of babel, you can use this today. Enable the class properties transform according to these instructions and you're good to go. Here's an example of the syntax:
class foo {
static myProp = 'bar'
someFunction() {
console.log(this.myProp)
}
}
This proposal is in a very early state, so be prepared to tweak your syntax as time goes on.
What about the oldschool way?
class MyClass {
constructor(count){
this.countVar = 1 + count;
}
}
MyClass.prototype.foo = "foo";
MyClass.prototype.countVar = 0;
// ...
var o1 = new MyClass(2); o2 = new MyClass(3);
o1.foo = "newFoo";
console.log( o1.foo,o2.foo);
console.log( o1.countVar,o2.countVar);
In constructor you mention only those vars which have to be computed.
I like prototype inheritance for this feature -- it can help to save a lot of memory(in case if there are a lot of never-assigned vars).
[Long thread, not sure if its already listed as an option...].
A simple alternative for contsants only, would be defining the const outside of class.
This will be accessible only from the module itself, unless accompanied with a getter.
This way prototype isn't littered and you get the const.
// will be accessible only from the module itself
const MY_CONST = 'string';
class MyClass {
// optional, if external access is desired
static get MY_CONST(){return MY_CONST;}
// access example
static someMethod(){
console.log(MY_CONST);
}
}
ES7 class member syntax:
ES7 has a solution for 'junking' your constructor function. Here is an example:
class Car {
wheels = 4;
weight = 100;
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
The above example would look the following in ES6:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.wheels = 4;
this.weight = 100;
}
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
Be aware when using this that this syntax might not be supported by all browsers and might have to be transpiled an earlier version of JS.
Bonus: an object factory:
function generateCar(wheels, weight) {
class Car {
constructor() {}
wheels = wheels;
weight = weight;
}
return new Car();
}
const car1 = generateCar(4, 50);
const car2 = generateCar(6, 100);
console.log(car1.wheels, car1.weight);
console.log(car2.wheels, car2.weight);
You can mimic es6 classes behaviour... and use your class variables :)
Look mum... no classes!
// Helper
const $constructor = Symbol();
const $extends = (parent, child) =>
Object.assign(Object.create(parent), child);
const $new = (object, ...args) => {
let instance = Object.create(object);
instance[$constructor].call(instance, ...args);
return instance;
}
const $super = (parent, context, ...args) => {
parent[$constructor].call(context, ...args)
}
// class
var Foo = {
classVariable: true,
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
this.me = who;
this.species = 'fufel';
},
// methods
identify(){
return 'I am ' + this.me;
}
}
// class extends Foo
var Bar = $extends(Foo, {
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
$super(Foo, this, who);
this.subtype = 'barashek';
},
// methods
speak(){
console.log('Hello, ' + this.identify());
},
bark(num){
console.log('Woof');
}
});
var a1 = $new(Foo, 'a1');
var b1 = $new(Bar, 'b1');
console.log(a1, b1);
console.log('b1.classVariable', b1.classVariable);
I put it on GitHub
Still you can't declare any classes like in another programming languages. But you can create as many class variables. But problem is scope of class object. So According to me, Best way OOP Programming in ES6 Javascript:-
class foo{
constructor(){
//decalre your all variables
this.MY_CONST = 3.14;
this.x = 5;
this.y = 7;
// or call another method to declare more variables outside from constructor.
// now create method level object reference and public level property
this.MySelf = this;
// you can also use var modifier rather than property but that is not working good
let self = this.MySelf;
//code .........
}
set MySelf(v){
this.mySelf = v;
}
get MySelf(v){
return this.mySelf;
}
myMethod(cd){
// now use as object reference it in any method of class
let self = this.MySelf;
// now use self as object reference in code
}
}
If its only the cluttering what gives the problem in the constructor why not implement a initialize method that intializes the variables. This is a normal thing to do when the constructor gets to full with unnecessary stuff. Even in typed program languages like C# its normal convention to add an Initialize method to handle that.
Just define a getter.
class MyClass
{
get MY_CONST () { return 'string'; }
constructor ()
{
console.log ("MyClass MY_CONST:", this.MY_CONST);
}
}
var obj = new MyClass();
The way I solved this, which is another option (if you have jQuery available), was to Define the fields in an old-school object and then extend the class with that object. I also didn't want to pepper the constructor with assignments, this appeared to be a neat solution.
function MyClassFields(){
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
MyClassFields.prototype = {
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt : null,
};
class MyClass {
constructor() {
$.extend(this,new MyClassFields());
}
};
-- Update Following Bergi's comment.
No JQuery Version:
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
Object.assign(this,{
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt: new Date(),
});
}
}
You still do end up with 'fat' constructor, but at least its all in one class and assigned in one hit.
EDIT #2:
I've now gone full circle and am now assigning values in the constructor, e.g.
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
this.id = '';
this.type = '';
this.title = '';
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
}
Why? Simple really, using the above plus some JSdoc comments, PHPStorm was able to perform code completion on the properties. Assigning all the vars in one hit was nice, but the inability to code complete the properties, imo, isn't worth the (almost certainly minuscule) performance benefit.
Well, you can declare variables inside the Constructor.
class Foo {
constructor() {
var name = "foo"
this.method = function() {
return name
}
}
}
var foo = new Foo()
foo.method()
Recent browsers as of 2021 (not IE, see MDN browser chart) implement Public class fields which seems to be what you're looking for:
class MyClass {
static foo = 3;
}
console.log(MyClass.foo);
However apparently it's not possible to make this a const: Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?
A static getter looks pretty close:
class MyClass {
static get CONST() {
return 3;
}
}
MyClass.CONST = 4; // property unaffected
console.log(MyClass.CONST);
This is a bit hackish combo of static and get works for me
class ConstantThingy{
static get NO_REENTER__INIT() {
if(ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT== null){
ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT = new ConstantThingy(false,true);
}
return ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT;
}
}
elsewhere used
var conf = ConstantThingy.NO_REENTER__INIT;
if(conf.init)...
Is it possible to extend a class in ES6 without calling the super method to invoke the parent class?
EDIT: The question might be misleading. Is it the standard that we have to call super() or am I missing something?
For example:
class Character {
constructor(){
console.log('invoke character');
}
}
class Hero extends Character{
constructor(){
super(); // exception thrown here when not called
console.log('invoke hero');
}
}
var hero = new Hero();
When I'm not calling super() on the derived class I'm getting a scope problem -> this is not defined
I'm running this with iojs --harmony in v2.3.0
The rules for ES2015 (ES6) classes basically come down to:
In a child class constructor, this cannot be used until super is called.
ES6 class constructors MUST call super if they are subclasses, or they must explicitly return some object to take the place of the one that was not initialized.
This comes down to two important sections of the ES2015 spec.
Section 8.1.1.3.4 defines the logic to decide what this is in the function. The important part for classes is that it is possible for this be in an "uninitialized" state, and when in this state, attempting to use this will throw an exception.
Section 9.2.2, [[Construct]], which defines the behavior of functions called via new or super. When calling a base class constructor, this is initialized at step #8 of [[Construct]], but for all other cases, this is uninitialized. At the end of construction, GetThisBinding is called, so if super has not been called yet (thus initializing this), or an explicit replacement object was not returned, the final line of the constructor call will throw an exception.
The new ES6 class syntax is only an other notation for "old" ES5 "classes" with prototypes. Therefore you cannot instantiate a specific class without setting its prototype (the base class).
Thats like putting cheese on your sandwich without making it. Also you cannot put cheese before making the sandwich, so...
...using this keyword before calling the super class with super() is not allowed, too.
// valid: Add cheese after making the sandwich
class CheeseSandwich extend Sandwich {
constructor() {
super();
this.supplement = "Cheese";
}
}
// invalid: Add cheese before making sandwich
class CheeseSandwich extend Sandwich {
constructor() {
this.supplement = "Cheese";
super();
}
}
// invalid: Add cheese without making sandwich
class CheeseSandwich extend Sandwich {
constructor() {
this.supplement = "Cheese";
}
}
If you don’t specify a constructor for a base class, the following definition is used:
constructor() {}
For derived classes, the following default constructor is used:
constructor(...args) {
super(...args);
}
EDIT: Found this on developer.mozilla.org:
When used in a constructor, the super keyword appears alone and must be used before the this keyword can be used.
Source
There have been multiple answers and comments stating that super MUST be the first line inside constructor. That is simply wrong. #loganfsmyth answer has the required references of the requirements, but it boil down to:
Inheriting (extends) constructor must call super before using this and before returning even if this isn't used
See fragment below (works in Chrome...) to see why it might make sense to have statements (without using this) before calling super.
'use strict';
var id = 1;
function idgen() {
return 'ID:' + id++;
}
class Base {
constructor(id) {
this.id = id;
}
toString() { return JSON.stringify(this); }
}
class Derived1 extends Base {
constructor() {
var anID = idgen() + ':Derived1';
super(anID);
this.derivedProp = this.baseProp * 2;
}
}
alert(new Derived1());
You can omit super() in your subclass, if you omit the constructor altogether in your subclass. A 'hidden' default constructor will be included automatically in your subclass. However, if you do include the constructor in your subclass, super() must be called in that constructor.
class A{
constructor(){
this.name = 'hello';
}
}
class B extends A{
constructor(){
// console.log(this.name); // ReferenceError
super();
console.log(this.name);
}
}
class C extends B{} // see? no super(). no constructor()
var x = new B; // hello
var y = new C; // hello
Read this for more information.
The answer by justyourimage is the easiest way, but his example is a little bloated. Here's the generic version:
class Base {
constructor(){
return this._constructor(...arguments);
}
_constructor(){
// just use this as the constructor, no super() restrictions
}
}
class Ext extends Base {
_constructor(){ // _constructor is automatically called, like the real constructor
this.is = "easy"; // no need to call super();
}
}
Don't extend the real constructor(), just use the fake _constructor() for the instantiation logic.
Note, this solution makes debugging annoying because you have to step into an extra method for every instantiation.
Just registered to post this solution since the answers here don't satisfy me the least since there is actually a simple way around this. Adjust your class-creation pattern to overwrite your logic in a sub-method while using only the super constructor and forward the constructors arguments to it.
As in you do not create an constructor in your subclasses per se but only reference to an method that is overridden in the respective subclass.
That means you set yourself free from the constructor functionality enforced upon you and refrain to a regular method - that can be overridden and doesn't enforce super() upon you letting yourself the choice if, where and how you want to call super (fully optional) e.g.:
super.ObjectConstructor(...)
class Observable {
constructor() {
return this.ObjectConstructor(arguments);
}
ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, options) {
this.obj = { type: "Observable" };
console.log("Observable ObjectConstructor called with arguments: ", arguments);
console.log("obj is:", this.obj);
return this.obj;
}
}
class ArrayObservable extends Observable {
ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, options, someMoreOptions) {
this.obj = { type: "ArrayObservable" };
console.log("ArrayObservable ObjectConstructor called with arguments: ", arguments);
console.log("obj is:", this.obj);
return this.obj;
}
}
class DomainObservable extends ArrayObservable {
ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, domainName, options, dependent1, dependent2) {
this.obj = super.ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, options);
console.log("DomainObservable ObjectConstructor called with arguments: ", arguments);
console.log("obj is:", this.obj);
return this.obj;
}
}
var myBasicObservable = new Observable("Basic Value", "Basic Options");
var myArrayObservable = new ArrayObservable("Array Value", "Array Options", "Some More Array Options");
var myDomainObservable = new DomainObservable("Domain Value", "Domain Name", "Domain Options", "Dependency A", "Depenency B");
cheers!
#Bergi mentioned new.target.prototype, but I was looking for a concrete example proving that you can access this (or better, the reference to the object the client code is creating with new, see below) without having to call super() at all.
Talk is cheap, show me the code... So here is an example:
class A { // Parent
constructor() {
this.a = 123;
}
parentMethod() {
console.log("parentMethod()");
}
}
class B extends A { // Child
constructor() {
var obj = Object.create(new.target.prototype)
// You can interact with obj, which is effectively your `this` here, before returning
// it to the caller.
return obj;
}
childMethod(obj) {
console.log('childMethod()');
console.log('this === obj ?', this === obj)
console.log('obj instanceof A ?', obj instanceof A);
console.log('obj instanceof B ?', obj instanceof B);
}
}
b = new B()
b.parentMethod()
b.childMethod(b)
Which will output:
parentMethod()
childMethod()
this === obj ? true
obj instanceof A ? true
obj instanceof B ? true
So you can see that we are effectively creating an object of type B (the child class) which is also an object of type A (its parent class) and within the childMethod() of child B we have this pointing to the object obj which we created in B's constructor with Object.create(new.target.prototype).
And all this without caring about super at all.
This leverages the fact that in JS a constructor can return a completely different object when the client code constructs a new instance with new.
Hope this helps someone.
Try:
class Character {
constructor(){
if(Object.getPrototypeOf(this) === Character.prototype){
console.log('invoke character');
}
}
}
class Hero extends Character{
constructor(){
super(); // throws exception when not called
console.log('invoke hero');
}
}
var hero = new Hero();
console.log('now let\'s invoke Character');
var char = new Character();
Demo
I would recommend to use OODK-JS if you intend to develop following OOP concepts.
OODK(function($, _){
var Character = $.class(function ($, µ, _){
$.public(function __initialize(){
$.log('invoke character');
});
});
var Hero = $.extends(Character).class(function ($, µ, _){
$.public(function __initialize(){
$.super.__initialize();
$.log('invoke hero');
});
});
var hero = $.new(Hero);
});
Simple solution: I think its clear no need for explanation.
class ParentClass() {
constructor(skipConstructor = false) { // default value is false
if(skipConstructor) return;
// code here only gets executed when 'super()' is called with false
}
}
class SubClass extends ParentClass {
constructor() {
super(true) // true for skipping ParentClass's constructor.
// code
}
}
Is it possible to extend a class in ES6 without calling the super method to invoke the parent class?
EDIT: The question might be misleading. Is it the standard that we have to call super() or am I missing something?
For example:
class Character {
constructor(){
console.log('invoke character');
}
}
class Hero extends Character{
constructor(){
super(); // exception thrown here when not called
console.log('invoke hero');
}
}
var hero = new Hero();
When I'm not calling super() on the derived class I'm getting a scope problem -> this is not defined
I'm running this with iojs --harmony in v2.3.0
The rules for ES2015 (ES6) classes basically come down to:
In a child class constructor, this cannot be used until super is called.
ES6 class constructors MUST call super if they are subclasses, or they must explicitly return some object to take the place of the one that was not initialized.
This comes down to two important sections of the ES2015 spec.
Section 8.1.1.3.4 defines the logic to decide what this is in the function. The important part for classes is that it is possible for this be in an "uninitialized" state, and when in this state, attempting to use this will throw an exception.
Section 9.2.2, [[Construct]], which defines the behavior of functions called via new or super. When calling a base class constructor, this is initialized at step #8 of [[Construct]], but for all other cases, this is uninitialized. At the end of construction, GetThisBinding is called, so if super has not been called yet (thus initializing this), or an explicit replacement object was not returned, the final line of the constructor call will throw an exception.
The new ES6 class syntax is only an other notation for "old" ES5 "classes" with prototypes. Therefore you cannot instantiate a specific class without setting its prototype (the base class).
Thats like putting cheese on your sandwich without making it. Also you cannot put cheese before making the sandwich, so...
...using this keyword before calling the super class with super() is not allowed, too.
// valid: Add cheese after making the sandwich
class CheeseSandwich extend Sandwich {
constructor() {
super();
this.supplement = "Cheese";
}
}
// invalid: Add cheese before making sandwich
class CheeseSandwich extend Sandwich {
constructor() {
this.supplement = "Cheese";
super();
}
}
// invalid: Add cheese without making sandwich
class CheeseSandwich extend Sandwich {
constructor() {
this.supplement = "Cheese";
}
}
If you don’t specify a constructor for a base class, the following definition is used:
constructor() {}
For derived classes, the following default constructor is used:
constructor(...args) {
super(...args);
}
EDIT: Found this on developer.mozilla.org:
When used in a constructor, the super keyword appears alone and must be used before the this keyword can be used.
Source
There have been multiple answers and comments stating that super MUST be the first line inside constructor. That is simply wrong. #loganfsmyth answer has the required references of the requirements, but it boil down to:
Inheriting (extends) constructor must call super before using this and before returning even if this isn't used
See fragment below (works in Chrome...) to see why it might make sense to have statements (without using this) before calling super.
'use strict';
var id = 1;
function idgen() {
return 'ID:' + id++;
}
class Base {
constructor(id) {
this.id = id;
}
toString() { return JSON.stringify(this); }
}
class Derived1 extends Base {
constructor() {
var anID = idgen() + ':Derived1';
super(anID);
this.derivedProp = this.baseProp * 2;
}
}
alert(new Derived1());
You can omit super() in your subclass, if you omit the constructor altogether in your subclass. A 'hidden' default constructor will be included automatically in your subclass. However, if you do include the constructor in your subclass, super() must be called in that constructor.
class A{
constructor(){
this.name = 'hello';
}
}
class B extends A{
constructor(){
// console.log(this.name); // ReferenceError
super();
console.log(this.name);
}
}
class C extends B{} // see? no super(). no constructor()
var x = new B; // hello
var y = new C; // hello
Read this for more information.
The answer by justyourimage is the easiest way, but his example is a little bloated. Here's the generic version:
class Base {
constructor(){
return this._constructor(...arguments);
}
_constructor(){
// just use this as the constructor, no super() restrictions
}
}
class Ext extends Base {
_constructor(){ // _constructor is automatically called, like the real constructor
this.is = "easy"; // no need to call super();
}
}
Don't extend the real constructor(), just use the fake _constructor() for the instantiation logic.
Note, this solution makes debugging annoying because you have to step into an extra method for every instantiation.
Just registered to post this solution since the answers here don't satisfy me the least since there is actually a simple way around this. Adjust your class-creation pattern to overwrite your logic in a sub-method while using only the super constructor and forward the constructors arguments to it.
As in you do not create an constructor in your subclasses per se but only reference to an method that is overridden in the respective subclass.
That means you set yourself free from the constructor functionality enforced upon you and refrain to a regular method - that can be overridden and doesn't enforce super() upon you letting yourself the choice if, where and how you want to call super (fully optional) e.g.:
super.ObjectConstructor(...)
class Observable {
constructor() {
return this.ObjectConstructor(arguments);
}
ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, options) {
this.obj = { type: "Observable" };
console.log("Observable ObjectConstructor called with arguments: ", arguments);
console.log("obj is:", this.obj);
return this.obj;
}
}
class ArrayObservable extends Observable {
ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, options, someMoreOptions) {
this.obj = { type: "ArrayObservable" };
console.log("ArrayObservable ObjectConstructor called with arguments: ", arguments);
console.log("obj is:", this.obj);
return this.obj;
}
}
class DomainObservable extends ArrayObservable {
ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, domainName, options, dependent1, dependent2) {
this.obj = super.ObjectConstructor(defaultValue, options);
console.log("DomainObservable ObjectConstructor called with arguments: ", arguments);
console.log("obj is:", this.obj);
return this.obj;
}
}
var myBasicObservable = new Observable("Basic Value", "Basic Options");
var myArrayObservable = new ArrayObservable("Array Value", "Array Options", "Some More Array Options");
var myDomainObservable = new DomainObservable("Domain Value", "Domain Name", "Domain Options", "Dependency A", "Depenency B");
cheers!
#Bergi mentioned new.target.prototype, but I was looking for a concrete example proving that you can access this (or better, the reference to the object the client code is creating with new, see below) without having to call super() at all.
Talk is cheap, show me the code... So here is an example:
class A { // Parent
constructor() {
this.a = 123;
}
parentMethod() {
console.log("parentMethod()");
}
}
class B extends A { // Child
constructor() {
var obj = Object.create(new.target.prototype)
// You can interact with obj, which is effectively your `this` here, before returning
// it to the caller.
return obj;
}
childMethod(obj) {
console.log('childMethod()');
console.log('this === obj ?', this === obj)
console.log('obj instanceof A ?', obj instanceof A);
console.log('obj instanceof B ?', obj instanceof B);
}
}
b = new B()
b.parentMethod()
b.childMethod(b)
Which will output:
parentMethod()
childMethod()
this === obj ? true
obj instanceof A ? true
obj instanceof B ? true
So you can see that we are effectively creating an object of type B (the child class) which is also an object of type A (its parent class) and within the childMethod() of child B we have this pointing to the object obj which we created in B's constructor with Object.create(new.target.prototype).
And all this without caring about super at all.
This leverages the fact that in JS a constructor can return a completely different object when the client code constructs a new instance with new.
Hope this helps someone.
Try:
class Character {
constructor(){
if(Object.getPrototypeOf(this) === Character.prototype){
console.log('invoke character');
}
}
}
class Hero extends Character{
constructor(){
super(); // throws exception when not called
console.log('invoke hero');
}
}
var hero = new Hero();
console.log('now let\'s invoke Character');
var char = new Character();
Demo
I would recommend to use OODK-JS if you intend to develop following OOP concepts.
OODK(function($, _){
var Character = $.class(function ($, µ, _){
$.public(function __initialize(){
$.log('invoke character');
});
});
var Hero = $.extends(Character).class(function ($, µ, _){
$.public(function __initialize(){
$.super.__initialize();
$.log('invoke hero');
});
});
var hero = $.new(Hero);
});
Simple solution: I think its clear no need for explanation.
class ParentClass() {
constructor(skipConstructor = false) { // default value is false
if(skipConstructor) return;
// code here only gets executed when 'super()' is called with false
}
}
class SubClass extends ParentClass {
constructor() {
super(true) // true for skipping ParentClass's constructor.
// code
}
}
Currently in ES5 many of us are using the following pattern in frameworks to create classes and class variables, which is comfy:
// ES 5
FrameWork.Class({
variable: 'string',
variable2: true,
init: function(){
},
addItem: function(){
}
});
In ES6 you can create classes natively, but there is no option to have class variables:
// ES6
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string'; // <-- this is not possible in ES6
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Sadly, the above won't work, as classes only can contain methods.
I understand that I can this.myVar = true in constructor…but I don't want to 'junk' my constructor, especially when I have 20-30+ params for a bigger class.
I was thinking of many ways to handle this issue, but haven't yet found any good ones. (For example: create a ClassConfig handler, and pass a parameter object, which is declared separately from the class. Then the handler would attach to the class. I was thinking about WeakMaps also to integrate, somehow.)
What kind of ideas would you have to handle this situation?
2018 update:
There is now a stage 3 proposal - I am looking forward to make this answer obsolete in a few months.
In the meantime anyone using TypeScript or babel can use the syntax:
varName = value
Inside a class declaration/expression body and it will define a variable. Hopefully in a few months/weeks I'll be able to post an update.
Update: Chrome 74 now ships with this syntax working.
The notes in the ES wiki for the proposal in ES6 (maximally minimal classes) note:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration.
Properties specified in a class definition are assigned the same attributes as if they appeared in an object literal.
This means that what you're asking for was considered, and explicitly decided against.
but... why?
Good question. The good people of TC39 want class declarations to declare and define the capabilities of a class. Not its members. An ES6 class declaration defines its contract for its user.
Remember, a class definition defines prototype methods - defining variables on the prototype is generally not something you do.
You can, of course use:
constructor(){
this.foo = bar
}
In the constructor like you suggested. Also see the summary of the consensus.
ES7 and beyond
A new proposal for ES7 is being worked on that allows more concise instance variables through class declarations and expressions - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/es7-property-initializers
Just to add to Benjamin's answer — class variables are possible, but you wouldn't use prototype to set them.
For a true class variable you'd want to do something like the following:
class MyClass {}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
From within a class method that variable can be accessed as this.constructor.foo (or MyClass.foo).
These class properties would not usually be accessible from to the class instance. i.e. MyClass.foo gives 'bar' but new MyClass().foo is undefined
If you want to also have access to your class variable from an instance, you'll have to additionally define a getter:
class MyClass {
get foo() {
return this.constructor.foo;
}
}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
I've only tested this with Traceur, but I believe it will work the same in a standard implementation.
JavaScript doesn't really have classes. Even with ES6 we're looking at an object- or prototype-based language rather than a class-based language. In any function X () {}, X.prototype.constructor points back to X.
When the new operator is used on X, a new object is created inheriting X.prototype. Any undefined properties in that new object (including constructor) are looked up from there. We can think of this as generating object and class properties.
Babel supports class variables in ESNext, check this example:
class Foo {
bar = 2
static iha = 'string'
}
const foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo.bar, foo.iha, Foo.bar, Foo.iha);
// 2, undefined, undefined, 'string'
In your example:
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string';
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Because of MY_CONST is primitive https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive we can just do:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
return 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
But if MY_CONST is reference type like static get MY_CONST() {return ['string'];} alert output is string, false. In such case delete operator can do the trick:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
And finally for class variable not const:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
static set U_YIN_YANG(value) {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
MyClass.MY_CONST = value;
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
set MY_CONST(value) {
this.constructor.MY_CONST = value;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, true
MyClass.MY_CONST = ['string, 42']
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, 42 ; true
Since your issue is mostly stylistic (not wanting to fill up the constructor with a bunch of declarations) it can be solved stylistically as well.
The way I view it, many class based languages have the constructor be a function named after the class name itself. Stylistically we could use that that to make an ES6 class that stylistically still makes sense but does not group the typical actions taking place in the constructor with all the property declarations we're doing. We simply use the actual JS constructor as the "declaration area", then make a class named function that we otherwise treat as the "other constructor stuff" area, calling it at the end of the true constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
// only declare your properties and then call this.ClassName(); from here
constructor(){
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
this.MyClass();
}
// all sorts of other "constructor" stuff, no longer jumbled with declarations
MyClass() {
doWhatever();
}
}
Both will be called as the new instance is constructed.
Sorta like having 2 constructors where you separate out the declarations and the other constructor actions you want to take, and stylistically makes it not too hard to understand that's what is going on too.
I find it's a nice style to use when dealing with a lot of declarations and/or a lot of actions needing to happen on instantiation and wanting to keep the two ideas distinct from each other.
NOTE: I very purposefully do not use the typical idiomatic ideas of "initializing" (like an init() or initialize() method) because those are often used differently. There is a sort of presumed difference between the idea of constructing and initializing. Working with constructors people know that they're called automatically as part of instantiation. Seeing an init method many people are going to assume without a second glance that they need to be doing something along the form of var mc = MyClass(); mc.init();, because that's how you typically initialize. I'm not trying to add an initialization process for the user of the class, I'm trying to add to the construction process of the class itself.
While some people may do a double-take for a moment, that's actually the bit of the point: it communicates to them that the intent is part of construction, even if that makes them do a bit of a double take and go "that's not how ES6 constructors work" and take a second looking at the actual constructor to go "oh, they call it at the bottom, I see", that's far better than NOT communicating that intent (or incorrectly communicating it) and probably getting a lot of people using it wrong, trying to initialize it from the outside and junk. That's very much intentional to the pattern I suggest.
For those that don't want to follow that pattern, the exact opposite can work too. Farm the declarations out to another function at the beginning. Maybe name it "properties" or "publicProperties" or something. Then put the rest of the stuff in the normal constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
properties() {
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
}
constructor() {
this.properties();
doWhatever();
}
}
Note that this second method may look cleaner but it also has an inherent problem where properties gets overridden as one class using this method extends another. You'd have to give more unique names to properties to avoid that. My first method does not have this problem because its fake half of the constructor is uniquely named after the class.
As Benjamin said in his answer, TC39 explicitly decided not to include this feature at least for ES2015. However, the consensus seems to be that they will add it in ES2016.
The syntax hasn't been decided yet, but there's a preliminary proposal for ES2016 that will allow you to declare static properties on a class.
Thanks to the magic of babel, you can use this today. Enable the class properties transform according to these instructions and you're good to go. Here's an example of the syntax:
class foo {
static myProp = 'bar'
someFunction() {
console.log(this.myProp)
}
}
This proposal is in a very early state, so be prepared to tweak your syntax as time goes on.
What about the oldschool way?
class MyClass {
constructor(count){
this.countVar = 1 + count;
}
}
MyClass.prototype.foo = "foo";
MyClass.prototype.countVar = 0;
// ...
var o1 = new MyClass(2); o2 = new MyClass(3);
o1.foo = "newFoo";
console.log( o1.foo,o2.foo);
console.log( o1.countVar,o2.countVar);
In constructor you mention only those vars which have to be computed.
I like prototype inheritance for this feature -- it can help to save a lot of memory(in case if there are a lot of never-assigned vars).
[Long thread, not sure if its already listed as an option...].
A simple alternative for contsants only, would be defining the const outside of class.
This will be accessible only from the module itself, unless accompanied with a getter.
This way prototype isn't littered and you get the const.
// will be accessible only from the module itself
const MY_CONST = 'string';
class MyClass {
// optional, if external access is desired
static get MY_CONST(){return MY_CONST;}
// access example
static someMethod(){
console.log(MY_CONST);
}
}
ES7 class member syntax:
ES7 has a solution for 'junking' your constructor function. Here is an example:
class Car {
wheels = 4;
weight = 100;
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
The above example would look the following in ES6:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.wheels = 4;
this.weight = 100;
}
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
Be aware when using this that this syntax might not be supported by all browsers and might have to be transpiled an earlier version of JS.
Bonus: an object factory:
function generateCar(wheels, weight) {
class Car {
constructor() {}
wheels = wheels;
weight = weight;
}
return new Car();
}
const car1 = generateCar(4, 50);
const car2 = generateCar(6, 100);
console.log(car1.wheels, car1.weight);
console.log(car2.wheels, car2.weight);
You can mimic es6 classes behaviour... and use your class variables :)
Look mum... no classes!
// Helper
const $constructor = Symbol();
const $extends = (parent, child) =>
Object.assign(Object.create(parent), child);
const $new = (object, ...args) => {
let instance = Object.create(object);
instance[$constructor].call(instance, ...args);
return instance;
}
const $super = (parent, context, ...args) => {
parent[$constructor].call(context, ...args)
}
// class
var Foo = {
classVariable: true,
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
this.me = who;
this.species = 'fufel';
},
// methods
identify(){
return 'I am ' + this.me;
}
}
// class extends Foo
var Bar = $extends(Foo, {
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
$super(Foo, this, who);
this.subtype = 'barashek';
},
// methods
speak(){
console.log('Hello, ' + this.identify());
},
bark(num){
console.log('Woof');
}
});
var a1 = $new(Foo, 'a1');
var b1 = $new(Bar, 'b1');
console.log(a1, b1);
console.log('b1.classVariable', b1.classVariable);
I put it on GitHub
Still you can't declare any classes like in another programming languages. But you can create as many class variables. But problem is scope of class object. So According to me, Best way OOP Programming in ES6 Javascript:-
class foo{
constructor(){
//decalre your all variables
this.MY_CONST = 3.14;
this.x = 5;
this.y = 7;
// or call another method to declare more variables outside from constructor.
// now create method level object reference and public level property
this.MySelf = this;
// you can also use var modifier rather than property but that is not working good
let self = this.MySelf;
//code .........
}
set MySelf(v){
this.mySelf = v;
}
get MySelf(v){
return this.mySelf;
}
myMethod(cd){
// now use as object reference it in any method of class
let self = this.MySelf;
// now use self as object reference in code
}
}
If its only the cluttering what gives the problem in the constructor why not implement a initialize method that intializes the variables. This is a normal thing to do when the constructor gets to full with unnecessary stuff. Even in typed program languages like C# its normal convention to add an Initialize method to handle that.
Just define a getter.
class MyClass
{
get MY_CONST () { return 'string'; }
constructor ()
{
console.log ("MyClass MY_CONST:", this.MY_CONST);
}
}
var obj = new MyClass();
The way I solved this, which is another option (if you have jQuery available), was to Define the fields in an old-school object and then extend the class with that object. I also didn't want to pepper the constructor with assignments, this appeared to be a neat solution.
function MyClassFields(){
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
MyClassFields.prototype = {
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt : null,
};
class MyClass {
constructor() {
$.extend(this,new MyClassFields());
}
};
-- Update Following Bergi's comment.
No JQuery Version:
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
Object.assign(this,{
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt: new Date(),
});
}
}
You still do end up with 'fat' constructor, but at least its all in one class and assigned in one hit.
EDIT #2:
I've now gone full circle and am now assigning values in the constructor, e.g.
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
this.id = '';
this.type = '';
this.title = '';
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
}
Why? Simple really, using the above plus some JSdoc comments, PHPStorm was able to perform code completion on the properties. Assigning all the vars in one hit was nice, but the inability to code complete the properties, imo, isn't worth the (almost certainly minuscule) performance benefit.
Well, you can declare variables inside the Constructor.
class Foo {
constructor() {
var name = "foo"
this.method = function() {
return name
}
}
}
var foo = new Foo()
foo.method()
Recent browsers as of 2021 (not IE, see MDN browser chart) implement Public class fields which seems to be what you're looking for:
class MyClass {
static foo = 3;
}
console.log(MyClass.foo);
However apparently it's not possible to make this a const: Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?
A static getter looks pretty close:
class MyClass {
static get CONST() {
return 3;
}
}
MyClass.CONST = 4; // property unaffected
console.log(MyClass.CONST);
This is a bit hackish combo of static and get works for me
class ConstantThingy{
static get NO_REENTER__INIT() {
if(ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT== null){
ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT = new ConstantThingy(false,true);
}
return ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT;
}
}
elsewhere used
var conf = ConstantThingy.NO_REENTER__INIT;
if(conf.init)...
I've spent the last couple of hours trying to find a solution to my problem but it seems to be hopeless.
Basically I need to know how to call a parent method from a child class.
All the stuff that I've tried so far ends up in either not working or over-writing the parent method.
I am using the following code to set up OOP in javascript:
// SET UP OOP
// surrogate constructor (empty function)
function surrogateCtor() {}
function extend(base, sub) {
// copy the prototype from the base to setup inheritance
surrogateCtor.prototype = base.prototype;
sub.prototype = new surrogateCtor();
sub.prototype.constructor = sub;
}
// parent class
function ParentObject(name) {
this.name = name;
}
// parent's methods
ParentObject.prototype = {
myMethod: function(arg) {
this.name = arg;
}
}
// child
function ChildObject(name) {
// call the parent's constructor
ParentObject.call(this, name);
this.myMethod = function(arg) {
// HOW DO I CALL THE PARENT METHOD HERE?
// do stuff
}
}
// setup the prototype chain
extend(ParentObject, ChildObject);
I need to call the parent's method first and then add some more stuff to it in the child class.
In most OOP languages that would be as simple as calling parent.myMethod()
But I really cant grasp how its done in javascript.
Any help is much appreciated, thank you!
ES6 style allows you to use new features, such as super keyword. super keyword it's all about parent class context, when you are using ES6 classes syntax. As a very simple example, checkout:
Remember: We cannot invoke parent static methods via super keyword inside an instance method. Calling method should also be static.
Invocation of static method via instance method - TypeError !
class Foo {
static classMethod() {
return 'hello';
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
classMethod() {
return super.classMethod() + ', too';
}
}
console.log(Bar.classMethod()); // 'hello' - Invokes inherited static method
console.log((new Bar()).classMethod()); // 'Uncaught TypeError' - Invokes on instance method
Invocation of static method via super - This works!
class Foo {
static classMethod() {
return 'hello';
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
static classMethod() {
return super.classMethod() + ', too';
}
}
console.log(Bar.classMethod()); // 'hello, too'
Now super context changes based on invocation - Voila!
class Foo {
static classMethod() {
return 'hello i am static only';
}
classMethod() {
return 'hello there i am an instance ';
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
classMethod() {
return super.classMethod() + ', too';
}
}
console.log((new Bar()).classMethod()); // "hello there i am an instance , too"
console.log(Bar.classMethod()); // "hello i am static only"
Also, you can use super to call parent constructor:
class Foo {}
class Bar extends Foo {
constructor(num) {
let tmp = num * 2; // OK
this.num = num; // ReferenceError
super();
this.num = num; // OK
}
}
And of course you can use it to access parent class properties super.prop.
So, use ES6 and be happy.
Here's how its done: ParentClass.prototype.myMethod();
Or if you want to call it in the context of the current instance, you can do:
ParentClass.prototype.myMethod.call(this)
Same goes for calling a parent method from child class with arguments:
ParentClass.prototype.myMethod.call(this, arg1, arg2, ..) * Hint: use apply() instead of call() to pass arguments as an array.
Well in order to do this, you are not limited with the Class abstraction of ES6. Accessing the parent constructor's prototype methods is possible through the __proto__ property (I am pretty sure there will be fellow JS coders to complain that it's depreciated) which is depreciated but at the same time discovered that it is actually an essential tool for sub-classing needs (especially for the Array sub-classing needs though). So while the __proto__ property is still available in all major JS engines that i know, ES6 introduced the Object.getPrototypeOf() functionality on top of it. The super() tool in the Class abstraction is a syntactical sugar of this.
So in case you don't have access to the parent constructor's name and don't want to use the Class abstraction you may still do as follows;
function ChildObject(name) {
// call the parent's constructor
ParentObject.call(this, name);
this.myMethod = function(arg) {
//this.__proto__.__proto__.myMethod.call(this,arg);
Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf(this)).myMethod.call(this,arg);
}
}
Here's a nice way for child objects to have access to parent properties and methods using JavaScript's prototype chain, and it's compatible with Internet Explorer. JavaScript searches the prototype chain for methods and we want the child’s prototype chain to looks like this:
Child instance -> Child’s prototype (with Child methods) -> Parent’s prototype (with Parent methods) -> Object prototype -> null
The child methods can also call shadowed parent methods, as shown at the three asterisks *** below.
Here’s how:
//Parent constructor
function ParentConstructor(firstName){
//add parent properties:
this.parentProperty = firstName;
}
//add 2 Parent methods:
ParentConstructor.prototype.parentMethod = function(argument){
console.log(
"Parent says: argument=" + argument +
", parentProperty=" + this.parentProperty +
", childProperty=" + this.childProperty
);
};
ParentConstructor.prototype.commonMethod = function(argument){
console.log("Hello from Parent! argument=" + argument);
};
//Child constructor
function ChildConstructor(firstName, lastName){
//first add parent's properties
ParentConstructor.call(this, firstName);
//now add child's properties:
this.childProperty = lastName;
}
//insert Parent's methods into Child's prototype chain
var rCopyParentProto = Object.create(ParentConstructor.prototype);
rCopyParentProto.constructor = ChildConstructor;
ChildConstructor.prototype = rCopyParentProto;
//add 2 Child methods:
ChildConstructor.prototype.childMethod = function(argument){
console.log(
"Child says: argument=" + argument +
", parentProperty=" + this.parentProperty +
", childProperty=" + this.childProperty
);
};
ChildConstructor.prototype.commonMethod = function(argument){
console.log("Hello from Child! argument=" + argument);
// *** call Parent's version of common method
ParentConstructor.prototype.commonMethod(argument);
};
//create an instance of Child
var child_1 = new ChildConstructor('Albert', 'Einstein');
//call Child method
child_1.childMethod('do child method');
//call Parent method
child_1.parentMethod('do parent method');
//call common method
child_1.commonMethod('do common method');
In case of multiple inheritance level, this function can be used as a super() method in other languages. Here is a demo fiddle, with some tests, you can use it like this, inside your method use : call_base(this, 'method_name', arguments);
It make use of quite recent ES functions, an compatibility with older browsers is not guarantee. Tested in IE11, FF29, CH35.
/**
* Call super method of the given object and method.
* This function create a temporary variable called "_call_base_reference",
* to inspect whole inheritance linage. It will be deleted at the end of inspection.
*
* Usage : Inside your method use call_base(this, 'method_name', arguments);
*
* #param {object} object The owner object of the method and inheritance linage
* #param {string} method The name of the super method to find.
* #param {array} args The calls arguments, basically use the "arguments" special variable.
* #returns {*} The data returned from the super method.
*/
function call_base(object, method, args) {
// We get base object, first time it will be passed object,
// but in case of multiple inheritance, it will be instance of parent objects.
var base = object.hasOwnProperty('_call_base_reference') ? object._call_base_reference : object,
// We get matching method, from current object,
// this is a reference to define super method.
object_current_method = base[method],
// Temp object wo receive method definition.
descriptor = null,
// We define super function after founding current position.
is_super = false,
// Contain output data.
output = null;
while (base !== undefined) {
// Get method info
descriptor = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(base, method);
if (descriptor !== undefined) {
// We search for current object method to define inherited part of chain.
if (descriptor.value === object_current_method) {
// Further loops will be considered as inherited function.
is_super = true;
}
// We already have found current object method.
else if (is_super === true) {
// We need to pass original object to apply() as first argument,
// this allow to keep original instance definition along all method
// inheritance. But we also need to save reference to "base" who
// contain parent class, it will be used into this function startup
// to begin at the right chain position.
object._call_base_reference = base;
// Apply super method.
output = descriptor.value.apply(object, args);
// Property have been used into super function if another
// call_base() is launched. Reference is not useful anymore.
delete object._call_base_reference;
// Job is done.
return output;
}
}
// Iterate to the next parent inherited.
base = Object.getPrototypeOf(base);
}
}
How about something based on Douglas Crockford idea:
function Shape(){}
Shape.prototype.name = 'Shape';
Shape.prototype.toString = function(){
return this.constructor.parent
? this.constructor.parent.toString() + ',' + this.name
: this.name;
};
function TwoDShape(){}
var F = function(){};
F.prototype = Shape.prototype;
TwoDShape.prototype = new F();
TwoDShape.prototype.constructor = TwoDShape;
TwoDShape.parent = Shape.prototype;
TwoDShape.prototype.name = '2D Shape';
var my = new TwoDShape();
console.log(my.toString()); ===> Shape,2D Shape
There is a much easier and more compact solution for multilevel prototype lookup, but it requires Proxy support. Usage: SUPER(<instance>).<method>(<args>), for example, assuming two classes A and B extends A with method m: SUPER(new B).m().
function SUPER(instance) {
return new Proxy(instance, {
get(target, prop) {
return Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf(target))[prop].bind(target);
}
});
}
more flexible answer with classic js.
You define "_parent = A.prototype;" in the child class, then you can call parent's methods with apply:
class A{
_msg='A';
_msgOnlyA=' great from A';
constructor(){
}
hello(){
console.log('hello '+this._msg+', '+this._msgOnlyA);
}
};
class B extends A{
_parent = A.prototype;
_msg='B';
constructor(){
super();
}
hello(){
this._parent.hello.apply(this, arguments);
console.log('hello '+this._msg);
}
};
var b = new B();
b.hello();
While you can call the parent method by the prototype of the parent, you will need to pass the current child instance for using call, apply, or bind method. The bind method will create a new function so I doesn't recommend that if you care for performance except it only called once.
As an alternative you can replace the child method and put the parent method on the instance while calling the original child method.
function proxy(context, parent){
var proto = parent.prototype;
var list = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(proto);
for(var i=0; i < list.length; i++){
var key = list[i];
// Create only when child have similar method name
if(context[key] !== proto[key]){
let currentMethod = context[key];
let parentMethod = proto[key];
context[key] = function(){
context.super = parentMethod;
return currentMethod.apply(context, arguments);
}
}
}
}
// ========= The usage would be like this ==========
class Parent {
first = "Home";
constructor(){
console.log('Parent created');
}
add(arg){
return this.first + ", Parent "+arg;
}
}
class Child extends Parent{
constructor(b){
super();
proxy(this, Parent);
console.log('Child created');
}
// Comment this to call method from parent only
add(arg){
return super.add(arg) + ", Child "+arg;
}
}
var family = new Child();
console.log(family.add('B'));