Basically this is a question how to access local scope handler. I trying to achieve something similar for global variable definition like:
window['newObject'] = "some string";
alert(newObject);
but for local scope. Right now only solution I have is using evals:
eval("var newObject='some string'");
But this is really ugly solution... The best one would be like using some reference to local scope like in a window[] solution, but I never heard of any reference to local scope... Any ideas ?
Example goes here:
function x(arg)
{
localScope[arg.name]=arg.value;
alert(sex);
}
x({name:"sex", value:"Male"});
What you're looking for is called the call object. But according to this, you can't access it directly, so you're out of luck.
Why not create an object in local scope and then use it as a container for any variables you wish to create dynamically?
function x(arg)
{
var localSpace = {};
localSpace[arg.name] = arg.value;
}
Okey I found related question that is talking about what I need...
How can I access local scope dynamically in javascript?
I just remember that in ECMA 262 is only one way to add dynamically local variables to scope using "with" statement (and eval of course), here are solution:
var x=function(obj)
{
with(obj)
{
alert(someObj);
}
}
alert(typeof someObj);
x ( {someObj:"yea"}) ;
alert(typeof someObj);
I must be missing something. How is what you want different from just doing:
var newObject = 'some string';
? (OP has clarified question)
I don't think there is a way to do what you are asking. Use members of a local object, e.g.
function doSomething(name, value)
{
var X = {};
X[name] = value;
if (X.foo == 26)
alert("you apparently just called doSomething('foo',26)");
}
If you choose a 1-character variable like $ or X, it "costs" you 2 characters (variable name plus a dot), and avoids trying to use eval or doing something weird.
You could try the named arguments trick
EDIT: This isn't cross browser
function x( {sex:sex, height:height} ) {
alert( sex );
alert( height );
}
x( { sex: 'male', height: 'short' } );
x( { height: 'medium', sex: 'female' } );
// male
// short
// female
// medium
Not sure what you need exactly, but here's my 2 cents.
The only way to dynamically create vars in an existing function is the eval method you've already mentioned.
Another option (mentioned by others) is that your function take a context map, and the template access it with dot notation (context.var1)
My final suggestion is the Function constructor. But I have a feeling this may be what you're looking for. (Note that the function constructor suffers from the same problems as an eval call)
var arg1 = "first";
var arg2 = "last";
// This is the body of the function that you want to execute with first
// and last as local variables. It would come from your template
var functionBody = "alert(first + ' ' + last)";
var myCustomFun = new Function(arg1, arg2, functionBody);
myCustomFun("Mark", "Brown"); // brings up and alert saying "Mark Brown";
Hope it helps
Interesting question, never thought of something like this. But what is the usecase?
The reason you'd want to do something like this, is if you don't know the name of the variable. But then in that case, the only way to access the variable again would be using the same reference object. I.e. you could just use any old object to store data in.
Reading from such a reference object would be interesting for debugging purposes, but I don't see why you'd want to write to it.
Edit:
The example you posted doesn't convince me of the need for access to the local scope, since you still have the name sex hard coded in the alert. This could be implemented as:
function x(arg)
{
container = {};
container[arg.name] = arg.value;
alert(container.sex);
}
Could you elaborate more on the example?
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. When creating a class x, I generally do this:
function x(args) {
var _self = this;
_self.PriviledgedMethod(a) {
// some code
}
function privateMethod(a) {
// some code
}
}
var newObject = new x(args);
You can continue to access _self and args since it is closed on by the contained functions.
Related
I am attempting to build my first custom object and it looks something like this:
function URLObject()
{
this.syllables = new Array();
etc...
this.AddtoSyllables = AddtoSyllables;
function AddtoSyllables(AWord)
{
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
}
var myobj = new URLObject();
myobj.AdtoSyllables("text");
The execution of the above code results in the JS engine printing out the following:
This is Sylcount: NAN
-or-
This is SylCount: undefined.
I have looked at information in Head First Javascript, in the Javascript bible, and on various JS websites. All of them cover in exhaustive detail the use of arrays of objects, but none of them discuss arrays within objects.
And yet I am doing something wrong here and I do not know what. Can anyone help?
Here you go:
function URLObject()
{
this.syllables = [];
etc...
}
URLObject.prototype.addToSyllables = function(aWord) {
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
var myobj = new URLObject();
myobj.adtoSyllables("text");
.prototype adds the function declared after it to every object constructed by the constructor function. (in your case every object that was instantiated by new URLObject())
Firstly, the code as posted actually works for me on Chrome and Firefox; so this must depend on the JavaScript engine, or else there's something funky going on.
Update: I suspect what may be confusing you is some separate call to AddtoSyllables (in code you haven't shown us) where suddenly this.syllables is no longer defined. This is where the behavior of this can get confusing. I've created a jsFiddle to hopefully explain how it works a bit better for you.
http://jsfiddle.net/J3tUb/
That said, it is often very possible to write code like this without having to use this (or the prototype) at all. For instance:
function createURLObject() {
// Use closed-over locals instead of attaching properties.
var syllables = new Array();
function AddToSyllables(AWord) {
// Since syllables is closed over, it is accessible here
// (but WON'T be accessible outside this scope).
syllables.push(AWord);
return syllables.length;
}
// Expose whatever functionality you want to be "public"
// in the returned object.
return {
AddToSyllables: AddToSyllables
};
}
var myObj = createURLObject();
myObj.AddToSyllables("text");
It is, of course, valuable to understand JavaScript's quirky (and surprising, to most developers coming from other languages) behavior with respect to this. That said, once you do understand it, I suspect you will find that it can often be avoided altogether.
you need to do this :
function URLObject()
{
var that = this;
that.AddtoSyllables = AddtoSyllables;
function AddtoSyllables(AWord)
etc...
Like this you can add method and attributes to one object.
The issue you are having is that the function AddtoSyllables is not a member function or method of the URLObject. It is just a nested function with no object attachments, so all usages of this will result in returning the dom window object. The correct way of declaring the AddtoSyllables function is this:
function URLObject()
{
//...
}
URLObject.prototype.AddtoSyllables = function (AWord)
{
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
To explain the reasons of the behavior in the question, I'd like to clarify that objects in javascript are treated like a map, dictionary or a key-value pair (use the term what suits you best). Using the syntax x.y = value; is equivalent putting the value value into the map x with key y. Having the code:
this.AddtoSyllables = AddtoSyllables;
function AddtoSyllables(AWord)
{
var SylCount = this.syllables.length;
alert("This is SylCount: " + SylCount);
}
adds the AddtoSyllables function as an entry to the object this points to.
The code
myobj.AdtoSyllables(...)
is equivalent to
myobj["AdtoSyllables"](...) // now a retreiaval operation
or even
var fn = myobj["AdtoSyllables"];
fn (...);
Inside the AdtoSyllables function, this is used. Against common expectations, it is not a pointer to the myobj.
The cause of this is that AddtoSyllables is treated as a static method of the URLObject class (as OOP guys would understand it), or even a loose static function (like in C). To make JS treat it like a member of the URLObject object (an instance method to OOP guys), JS must be told to do so. This is achieved through the URLObject.prototype.AddtoSyllables = .... which equivalents to declaration of an instance method.
From an alternative point of view:
function foo() { /* some code using `this` */ }
var bar = {};
var baz = {};
bar.foo = foo; // same as bar["foo"] = foo;
baz.foo = foo; // same az baz["foo"] = foo;
In the above code, this usages inside foo will neither point to bar, nor baz. At the same time bar.foo will point to the very same instance as baz.foo, for foo is also an object.
We have a lot of setup JS code that defines panels, buttons, etc that will be used in many other JS files.
Typically, we do something like:
grid.js
var myGrid = .....
combos.js
var myCombo = .....
Then, in our application code, we:
application.js
function blah() {
myGrid.someMethod()
}
someother.js
function foo() {
myCombo.someMethod();
myGrid.someMethod();
}
So, should we be using the var myGrid or is better to use window.myGrid
What's the difference?
A potentially important difference in functionality is that window.myGrid can be deleted, and var myGrid can not.
var test1 = 'value';
window.test2 = 'value';
console.log( delete window.test1 ); // false ( was not deleted )
console.log( delete window.test2 ); // true ( was deleted )
console.log( test1 ); // 'value' ( still accessible )
console.log( test2 ); // ReferenceError ( no longer exists )
I would suggest creating a namespace variable var App = {};
App.myGrid = ...
That way you can limit the pollution of the global namespace.
EDIT: Regarding the number of variables issue - 2 possible solutions come to mind:
You can further namespace them by type(Grids, Buttons, etc) or by relationship(ClientInfoSection, AddressSection, etc)
You encapsulate your methods in objects that get instantiated with the components you have
ex: you have
function foo() {
myCombo.someMethod();
myGrid.someMethod();
}
becomes:
var Foo = function(combo, grid) {
var myCombo = combo;//will be a private property
this.myGrid = grid;//will be a public property
this.foo = function() {//public method
myCombo.someMethod();
myGrid.someMethod();
}
}
App.myFoo = new Foo(someCombo, someGrid);
App.myFoo.foo();
this way you limit the amount of little objects and only expose what you need (namely the foo function)
PS: if you need to expose the internal components then add them to this inside the constructor function
One nice use of window.variable is that you can check it without having a javascript error. For example, if you have:
if (myVar) {
//do work
}
and myVar is not defined anywhere on the page, you will get a javascript error. However:
if (window.myVar) {
//do work
}
gives no error, and works as one would expect.
var myVar = 'test' and window.myVar = 'test' are roughly equivalent.
Aside from that, as other said, you should descend from one global object to avoid polluting the global namespace.
In global scope the two are in fact equivalent functionality-wise. In function scope, var is certainly preferable when the behaviour of closures is desired.
I would just use var all of the time: firstly, it's consistent with the usually preferred behaviour in closures (so it's easier to move your code into a closure if you decide to do so later), and secondly, it just feels more semantic to me to say that I'm creating a variable than attaching a property of the window. But it's mostly style at this point.
The general answer to the question would be to use var.
More specifically, always put your code in an Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE):
(function(){
var foo,
bar;
...code...
})();
This keeps variables like foo and bar from polluting the global namespace. Then, when you explicitly want a variable to be on the global object (typically window) you can write:
window.foo = foo;
JavaScript has functional scope, and it's really good to take full advantage of it. You wouldn't want your app to break just because some other programmer did something silly like overwrote your timer handle.
In addition to other answers, worth noting is that if you don't use var inside a function while declaring a variable, it leaks into global scope automatically making it a property of window object (or global scope).
To expand on what Liviu said, use:
App = (function() {
var exports = {};
/* code goes here, attach to exports to create Public API */
return exports;
})();
By doing that you can hide some of your implementation specific code, which you may not want exposed by using var's inside. However, you can access anything attached to the exports object.
I am now in the process of removing most globals from my code by enclosing everything in a function, turning the globals into "pseudo globals," that are all accessible from anywhere inside that function block.
(function(){
var g = 1;
var func f1 = function () { alert (g); }
var func f2= function () { f1(); }
})();
(technically this is only for my "release version", where I append all my files together into a single file and surround them with the above....my dev version still has typically one global per js file)
This all works great except for one thing...there is one important place where I need to access some of these "globals" by string name. Previously, I could have done this:
var name = "g";
alert (window[name]);
and it did the same as
alert(g);
Now -- from inside the block -- I would like to do the same, on my pseudo-globals. But I can't, since they are no longer members of any parent object ("window"), even though are in scope.
Any way to access them by string?
Thanks...
Basically no, as answered indirectly by this question: Javascript equivalent of Python's locals()?
Your only real option would be to use eval, which is usually not a good or even safe idea, as described in this question: Why is using the JavaScript eval function a bad idea?
If the string name of those variables really and truly is defined in a safe way (e.g. not through user-input or anything), then I would recommend just using eval. Just be sure to think really long and hard about this and whether there is not perhaps a better way to do this.
You can name the function you are using to wrap the entire code.
Then set the "global" variable as a member of that function (remember functions are objects in JavaScript).
Then, you can access the variable exactly as you did before....just use the name of the function instead of "window".
It would look something like this:
var myApp = new (function myApp(){
this.g = "world";
//in the same scope
alert ( "Hello " + this["g"]);
})();
//outside
alert ( "Hello " + myApp["g"]);
if you want to access something in a global scope, you have to put something out there. in your case it's probably an object which references your closed off function.
var obj1 = new (function(){
var g = 1;
var func f1 = function () { alert (g); }
var func f2= function () { f1(); }
})();
you can add a method or property as a getter for g. if the value of g isn't constant you might do like
this.getG = function() { return g; };
you can work from there to access items by name, like
alert( obj1["getG"]() );
alert( window["obj1"]["getG"]() );
I'm trying to get the name of the currently running function. From what I've read, this should be possible using:
(arguments.callee.toString()).match(/function\s+(\[^\s\(]+)/)
However, when I run this in Firefox and Safari (latest versions on Mac) the name is not returned.
console.log( arguments.callee ) returns the source of the function, but not the assigned name. arguments.callee.name returns an empty string.
My sample code is as follows:
var testobj = {
testfunc: function(){
console.log( (arguments.callee.toString()).match(/function\s+(\[^\s\(]+)/) );
}
}
testobj.testfunc();
You declared an anonymous function with
function(){
You should declare it as
function testfunc(){
to get the name printed.
The typical arguments.callee hacks don't work here because what you've done is assigned an anonymous function as the value for the object's 'testfunc' key. In this case the hacking even gets worse, but it can be done, as follows:
var testobj = {
testfunc: function(){
for (var attr in testobj) {
if (testobj[attr] == arguments.callee.toString()) {
alert(attr);
break;
}
}
}
}
testobj.testfunc();
On firefox 3.5, Safari 5, and Chrome 6.0 you can use:
function myFunctionName() {
alert("Name is " + arguments.callee.name );
}
myFunctionName();
You can also get the function that called the current one using arguments.callee.caller.
/function\s+(\[^\s\(]+)/
What's with the backslash before [? I don't think you want a literal square bracket here. Without that it should work.
Although I'd strongly recommend against anything to do with sniffing function name or especially sniffing caller function. Almost anything you might do using these hideous hacks will be better done using some combination of closures and lookups.
I think there's a much cleaner and elegant solution to all this. Assuming the function is a member of some higher-level object—and that's always going to be the case, even if the function's owner is "window" or some other global object, we can access the global object via the this keyword, we can access the function itself via arguments.callee and we can access all the parent's object (function) names via for (var o in this), so you should be able to get the desired information fairly easily as...
returnMyName = function() {
for (var o in this) {
if (arguments.callee===this[o]) return o;
}
};
That should be robust and avoid any weird IE browser behaviors accessing named functions, etc.
Function.prototype.getName = function(fn) {
if(Function.name || Function.prototype.name) return this.name;
return this.toString().match(/^function\s+(\w+)\s*\(/)[1];
};
First of all, the function doesn't have a name. The function name is what you put in-between function and the arguments list (...). Here's how to get a function's name (don't use the name property, as it can be changed):
var fName = arguments.callee.toString(0).match(
/^function\s*(?:\s+([\w\$]*))?\s*\(/
);
fName = (fName ? fName[1] : "");
I found that if you simply log the function object, like so:
console.log(arguments.callee)
or
console.debug(arguments.callee)
that you simply get the function name in the console log with some options.
Let's say I instantiate an object in Javascript like this:
var myObj = new someObject();
Now, is it possible to obtain the var object's name as string 'myObj' from within one of the class methods?
Additional details (edited):
The reason why I would like to get the name of the variable holding reference to the object is that my new myObj would create a new clickable DIV on the page that would need to call a function myObj.someFunction(). As I insert the new DIV I need to know the name of the variable holding reference to the object. Is there maybe a better way of doing this?
You are right, sorry for the mixup in terminology.
The reason why I would like to get the name of the variable holding reference to the object is that my new myObj would create a new clickable DIV on the page that would need to call a function myObj.someFunction(). As I insert the new DIV I need to know the name of the variable holding reference to the object. Is there maybe a better way of doing this?
Shog9 is right that this doesn't make all that much sense to ask, since an object could be referred to by multiple variables. If you don't really care about that, and all you want is to find the name of one of the global variables that refers to that object, you could do the following hack:
function myClass() {
this.myName = function () {
// search through the global object for a name that resolves to this object
for (var name in this.global)
if (this.global[name] == this)
return name
}
}
// store the global object, which can be referred to as this at the top level, in a
// property on our prototype, so we can refer to it in our object's methods
myClass.prototype.global = this
// create a global variable referring to an object
var myVar = new myClass()
myVar.myName() // returns "myVar"
Note that this is an ugly hack, and should not be used in production code. If there is more than one variable referring to an object, you can't tell which one you'll get. It will only search the global variables, so it won't work if a variable is local to a function. In general, if you need to name something, you should pass the name in to the constructor when you create it.
edit: To respond to your clarification, if you need to be able to refer to something from an event handler, you shouldn't be referring to it by name, but instead add a function that refers to the object directly. Here's a quick example that I whipped up that shows something similar, I think, to what you're trying to do:
function myConstructor () {
this.count = 0
this.clickme = function () {
this.count += 1
alert(this.count)
}
var newDiv = document.createElement("div")
var contents = document.createTextNode("Click me!")
// This is the crucial part. We don't construct an onclick handler by creating a
// string, but instead we pass in a function that does what we want. In order to
// refer to the object, we can't use this directly (since that will refer to the
// div when running event handler), but we create an anonymous function with an
// argument and pass this in as that argument.
newDiv.onclick = (function (obj) {
return function () {
obj.clickme()
}
})(this)
newDiv.appendChild(contents)
document.getElementById("frobnozzle").appendChild(newDiv)
}
window.onload = function () {
var myVar = new myConstructor()
}
Short answer: No. myObj isn't the name of the object, it's the name of a variable holding a reference to the object - you could have any number of other variables holding a reference to the same object.
Now, if it's your program, then you make the rules: if you want to say that any given object will only be referenced by one variable, ever, and diligently enforce that in your code, then just set a property on the object with the name of the variable.
That said, i doubt what you're asking for is actually what you really want. Maybe describe your problem in a bit more detail...?
Pedantry: JavaScript doesn't have classes. someObject is a constructor function. Given a reference to an object, you can obtain a reference to the function that created it using the constructor property.
In response to the additional details you've provided:
The answer you're looking for can be found here: JavaScript Callback Scope (and in response to numerous other questions on SO - it's a common point of confusion for those new to JS). You just need to wrap the call to the object member in a closure that preserves access to the context object.
You can do it converting by the constructor to a string using .toString() :
function getObjectClass(obj){
if (typeof obj != "object" || obj === null) return false;
else return /(\w+)\(/.exec(obj.constructor.toString())[1];}
You might be able to achieve your goal by using it in a function, and then examining the function's source with toString():
var whatsMyName;
// Just do something with the whatsMyName variable, no matter what
function func() {var v = whatsMyName;}
// Now that we're using whatsMyName in a function, we could get the source code of the function as a string:
var source = func.toString();
// Then extract the variable name from the function source:
var result = /var v = (.[^;]*)/.exec(source);
alert(result[1]); // Should alert 'whatsMyName';
If you don't want to use a function constructor like in Brian's answer you can use Object.create() instead:-
var myVar = {
count: 0
}
myVar.init = function(n) {
this.count = n
this.newDiv()
}
myVar.newDiv = function() {
var newDiv = document.createElement("div")
var contents = document.createTextNode("Click me!")
var func = myVar.func(this)
newDiv.addEventListener ?
newDiv.addEventListener('click', func, false) :
newDiv.attachEvent('onclick', func)
newDiv.appendChild(contents)
document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChild(newDiv)
}
myVar.func = function (thys) {
return function() {
thys.clickme()
}
}
myVar.clickme = function () {
this.count += 1
alert(this.count)
}
myVar.init(2)
var myVar1 = Object.create(myVar)
myVar1.init(55)
var myVar2 = Object.create(myVar)
myVar2.init(150)
// etc
Strangely, I couldn't get the above to work using newDiv.onClick, but it works with newDiv.addEventListener / newDiv.attachEvent.
Since Object.create is newish, include the following code from Douglas Crockford for older browsers, including IE8.
if (typeof Object.create !== 'function') {
Object.create = function (o) {
function F() {}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
}
As a more elementary situation it would be nice IF this had a property that could reference it's referring variable (heads or tails) but unfortunately it only references the instantiation of the new coinSide object.
javascript: /* it would be nice but ... a solution NOT! */
function coinSide(){this.ref=this};
/* can .ref be set so as to identify it's referring variable? (heads or tails) */
heads = new coinSide();
tails = new coinSide();
toss = Math.random()<0.5 ? heads : tails;
alert(toss.ref);
alert(["FF's Gecko engine shows:\n\ntoss.toSource() is ", toss.toSource()])
which always displays
[object Object]
and Firefox's Gecko engine shows:
toss.toSource() is ,#1={ref:#1#}
Of course, in this example, to resolve #1, and hence toss, it's simple enough to test toss==heads and toss==tails. This question, which is really asking if javascript has a call-by-name mechanism, motivates consideration of the counterpart, is there a call-by-value mechanism to determine the ACTUAL value of a variable? The example demonstrates that the "values" of both heads and tails are identical, yet alert(heads==tails) is false.
The self-reference can be coerced as follows:
(avoiding the object space hunt and possible ambiguities as noted in the How to get class object's name as a string in Javascript? solution)
javascript:
function assign(n,v){ eval( n +"="+ v ); eval( n +".ref='"+ n +"'" ) }
function coinSide(){};
assign("heads", "new coinSide()");
assign("tails", "new coinSide()");
toss = Math.random()<0.5 ? heads : tails;
alert(toss.ref);
to display heads or tails.
It is perhaps an anathema to the essence of Javascript's language design, as an interpreted prototyping functional language, to have such capabilities as primitives.
A final consideration:
javascript:
item=new Object(); refName="item"; deferAgain="refName";
alert([deferAgain,eval(deferAgain),eval(eval(deferAgain))].join('\n'));
so, as stipulated ...
javascript:
function bindDIV(objName){
return eval( objName +'=new someObject("'+objName+'")' )
};
function someObject(objName){
this.div="\n<DIV onclick='window.opener."+ /* window.opener - hiccup!! */
objName+
".someFunction()'>clickable DIV</DIV>\n";
this.someFunction=function(){alert(['my variable object name is ',objName])}
};
with(window.open('','test').document){ /* see above hiccup */
write('<html>'+
bindDIV('DIVobj1').div+
bindDIV('DIV2').div+
(alias=bindDIV('multiply')).div+
'an aliased DIV clone'+multiply.div+
'</html>');
close();
};
void (0);
Is there a better way ... ?
"better" as in easier? Easier to program? Easier to understand? Easier as in faster execution? Or is it as in "... and now for something completely different"?
Immediately after the object is instantiatd, you can attach a property, say name, to the object and assign the string value you expect to it:
var myObj = new someClass();
myObj.name="myObj";
document.write(myObj.name);
Alternatively, the assignment can be made inside the codes of the class, i.e.
var someClass = function(P)
{ this.name=P;
// rest of the class definition...
};
var myObj = new someClass("myObj");
document.write(myObj.name);
Some time ago, I used this.
Perhaps you could try:
+function(){
var my_var = function get_this_name(){
alert("I " + this.init());
};
my_var.prototype.init = function(){
return my_var.name;
}
new my_var();
}();
Pop an Alert: "I get_this_name".
This is pretty old, but I ran across this question via Google, so perhaps this solution might be useful to others.
function GetObjectName(myObject){
var objectName=JSON.stringify(myObject).match(/"(.*?)"/)[1];
return objectName;
}
It just uses the browser's JSON parser and regex without cluttering up the DOM or your object too much.