I was always curious is there any possibility to overload function literal, something like you can do with Function:
var test=Function;
Function=function(arg)
{
alert('test');
return test(arg);
}
var b=Function("alert('a')");
var c=Function("alert('x')");
b();
c();
Of course you can guess that this is nice way of debugging whole project. However any effort I made here goes for nothing.
Question for you experts is:
Maybe there is something that i don't know, maybe there is possibility to overload this damn constructor? (but probably not).
If not then - how to do this - if this possible - in any of browser (not just by using javascript - but their extended language - every browser got something like this).
If not then - how this is done trough addOn like firebug or etc. ??
You're terminology is off: Function() is the function constructor, whereas function() {...} is a function literal.
And no, I don't think there's a portable way to do this, but there might be for old versions of Firefox: If I remember correctly, it once was possible to use with() {...} to shadow the built-in constructor functions and Firefox would use the new ones even for literals.
This seems to work no longer:
var overload = {
Object : function() {}
};
overload.Object.prototype.foo = 'bar';
with(overload) {
document.writeln(new Object().foo);
document.writeln({}.foo);
}
Related
I don't want third party JS to see the code of the functions I expose so I've overridden their .toString method.
Is there any other way to expose the function code than toString ?
Thanks!
A custom toString property isn't sufficient, because Function.prototype.toString can be called on the function:
function foo() {
console.log('foo implementation');
};
foo.toString = () => 'hidden';
console.log(Function.prototype.toString.call(foo));
Currently, there's no way to fully hide the implementation without overwriting Function.prototype.toString beforehand so that nothing can reference and call it later (which would be a really weird solution), eg:
Function.prototype.toString = () => 'nope';
but even that isn't foolproof in multi-realm environments.
There may eventually be a proper way to do this with the implementation hiding proposal. Its syntax is similar to use strict, except that it will prevent external consumers of the function from being able to see anything inside. For example:
const y = () => {
"hide source";
// implement y here
// nothing outside will be able to see its source code (easily)
};
The proposal is only at stage 2, but it's expected to make its way into the official language eventually.
All that said - these techniques can be used to make it more difficult for third-party code to see what you're doing, but they don't guarantee it - after all, anyone who cared to could look at your code manually and see what's going on.
I am creating an object inside of an enclosure. Also in the enclosure are private properties that the object's functions can access - and this works as expected.
My issue: I want others to be able to extend my object with functions of their own (functions from a different context), but those functions will also need access to the same private properties - and I have not been able to find a way to make this work.
I've tried various configurations of .call, and also wrapping their function in a new function, amongst other things. I feel like I've gotten close to a solution, but have just fallen short.
Here's a bit of simplified example code that accurately reflects my situation:
//extension object
//fn2 can be any function, with any number of arguments, etc.
var obj1 = {};
obj1.fn2 = function (s1, s2){ console.log(priv); };
//actual object
var obj2 = (function (){
//private property
var priv = "hello world";
//return object
var obj3 = {};
//return object's native fn (works)
obj3.fn = function (s){ console.log(priv); };
//extension happens here - but is obviously not correct
obj3.fn2 = obj1.fn2;
//return object
return obj3;
})();
//try output
obj2.fn("goodbye world"); //works
obj2.fn2("goodbye world", "thx 4 teh phish"); //fails
Any insight would be appreciated. And I totally understand if what I want just isn't possible - but it sure seems like it should be :P
EDIT: Thank you all for the responses. I fully understand that the properties are more easily accessed as public, and that normally inherited objects won't have access to them otherwise. However, since the new function is being attached to the original object I have to believe there's a way to use the original context and not the context the new function was created in.
Now, I'm the first to say that eval is evil - and, in fact, I've never used it, or even considered using it, before. However, I'm trying everything I can think of to make this work - and I stumbled across this (seemingly) working solution:
obj3.fn2 = eval(obj1.fn2.toString());
So, if I check to make sure that obj1.fn2 is a typeof function, is there any way this could be harmful to my code? It doesn't execute the function, so I can't see how - but maybe I'm missing something?
Javascript doesn't have a "protected" analog. You either get super private or completely public. From here you can choose to:
Reconsider your class design, and have the subclasses depend only on the public interface of the parent class.
Add getter and setter functions to the public interface. Not necessarily the best thing though as you might just as well make the properties public (besides best practice issues and whatnot)
Just use public properties instead. This is the "natural" way to do OO inheritance in Javascript and is usually not a problem if you use a donvention like adding an underscore to the beggining of the name. As a bonus you can use the prototypal inheritance feature (it is nice knowing how to use this instead of only closure-based classes)
function Base(){
this._priv = "Hello world"
};
Base.prototype = {
fn: function(){
console.log(this._priv);
}
}
var obj2 = new Base();
obj2.fn = function(){ ... }
I hate to answer my own question - seems like a bit of a faux pas - but c'est la vie. (because I woke up French today?)
So, while I found that the eval() solution I presented last night in the edit to my original question does seem to be a valid solution, and a proper use of eval for retaining the object's context within the new function, it is far from perfect.
Firstly, it works in FF, but both IE and Chrome seem to hate it (those were the next ones I tried, and I quit trying others after they both failed). Though I'm sure it could probably be made to work across browsers, it seems like a hassle.
Secondly, it does give quite a bit of power to the new function, and as I look at my code more I do like the idea of controlling exactly what these new functions being added to my object get access to.
Thirdly, .eval() is typically pretty slow - and it turns out that .apply() (which is typically faster) just may work well enough.
This is because I realized at some point last night that no new functions on this object will need to set any of the private variables (at least, I'm fairly certain they won't) - and .apply() works fine to pass the values through for them to read.
I'm sure there's more to it than just those 3 things, but for now I think I'm going to go with more of a 'wrapper' solution - something like this:
var f = function (){
var fauxThis = {};
fauxThis.priv = priv;
obj1.fn2.apply(fauxThis, arguments);
};
obj3.fn2 = f;
//(To be placed where I had "obj3.fn2 = obj1.fn2;")
I am certainly willing now to consider the use of eval() in very specific cases - and may even revisit this specific use of it before I make my final decision of which direction to take. (especially if I can think of a case where the private value would need to be set)
Thanks all for your input!
The quickest and easiest solution is to prefix any supposedly private properties with the underscore (_).
Personally I like to bottle my private properties into a single object which would be placed on the object, like so:
obj.publicProp = 20;
obj._.privateProp = true;
I wouldn't worry so much about it though, the underscore is basically a universal symbol for private so those using the script will know that it's private and shouldn't be touched. Or, better yet, just leave it out of the public documentation ;)
There are other methods and you can use which do emulate "true" protected variables, but they're not the best as they avoid garbage collection, and can be clunky to use.
I was reading Prototypes in javascript and I have written 2 small js codes which are outputting exactly same. I just want to know what is the difference between them:
Code 1:
String.sam = function() { alert('fine') };
'ok'.sam();
Code 2 with prototype:
String.prototype.sam = function() { alert('fine') };
'ok'.sam();
Please clarify the difference and the better way to use the code.
Thanks
Your first example doesn't work. What you are doing is creating a static method on the string object so you would have to call it statically
//OK
String.sam();
//not OK, raises error
'hello'.sam();
In your second example the keyword this will refer to the instance of the string you call it on. So you can do something like
String.prototype.sam = function() {
console.log( this.toUpperCase() );
}
'hello'.sam(); // HELLO
This technique, although powerful is frowned upon in certain quarters. It is known as Guerrilla patching, Monkey punching or similar things.
There are a few reasons it is considered bad:
Hard to debug (you've changed the language)
Easy to break other code on the page that is not aware you've altered a prototype
Possible clashes with future enhancements of the core.
Probably lots more
I think, your first method adds only for this special property the alert() method. If you want create another instance, you have to do the same thing again. With protoype you define it more generally so you don't have to do the same thing again for another instance.
Perhaps http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/proto.shtml will help you to understand it better.
For a long time I have been throwing around the idea of making my JavaScript more object oriented. I have looked at a few different implementations of this as well but I just cannot decide if it is necessary or not.
What I am trying to answer are the following questions
Is John Resig's simple inheritance structure safe to use for production?
Is there any way to be able to tell how well it has been tested?
Besides Joose what other choices do I have for this purpose? I need one that is easy to use, fast, and robust. It also needs to be compatible with jQuery.
Huh. It looks much more complicated than it needs to be, to me.
Actually looking more closely I really take exception to what it is doing with providing this._super() whilst in a method, to call the superclass method.
The code introduces a reliance on typeof==='function' (unreliable for some objects), Function#toString (argh, function decomposition is also unreliable), and deciding whether to wrap based on whether you've used the sequence of bytes _super in the function body (even if you've only used it in a string. and if you try eg. this['_'+'super'] it'll fail).
And if you're storing properties on your function objects (eg MyClass.myFunction.SOME_PRIVATE_CONSTANT, which you might do to keep namespaces clean) the wrapping will stop you from getting at those properties. And if an exception is thrown in a method and caught in another method of the same object, _super will end up pointing at the wrong thing.
All this is just to make calling your superclass's method-of-the-same name easier. But I don't think that's especially hard to do in JS anyway. It's too clever for its own good, and in the process making the whole less reliable. (Oh, and arguments.callee isn't valid in Strict Mode, though that's not really his fault since that occurred after he posted it.)
Here's what I'm using for classes at the moment. I don't claim that this is the “best” JS class system, because there are loads of different ways of doing it and a bunch of different features you might want to add or not add. But it's very lightweight and aims at being ‘JavaScriptic’, if that's a word. (It isn't.)
Function.prototype.makeSubclass= function() {
function Class() {
if (!(this instanceof Class))
throw 'Constructor function requires new operator';
if ('_init' in this)
this._init.apply(this, arguments);
}
if (this!==Object) {
Function.prototype.makeSubclass.nonconstructor.prototype= this.prototype;
Class.prototype= new Function.prototype.makeSubclass.nonconstructor();
}
return Class;
};
Function.prototype.makeSubclass.nonconstructor= function() {};
It provides:
protection against accidental missing new. The alternative is to silently redirect X() to new X() so missing new works. It's a toss-up which is best; I went for explicit error so that one doesn't get used to writing without new and causing problems on other objects not defined like that. Either way is better than the unacceptable JS default of letting this. properties fall onto window and mysteriously going wrong later.
an inheritable _init method, so you don't have to write a constructor-function that does nothing but call the superclass constructor function.
and that's really all.
Here's how you might use it to implement Resig's example:
var Person= Object.makeSubclass();
Person.prototype._init= function(isDancing) {
this.dancing= isDancing;
};
Person.prototype.dance= function() {
return this.dancing;
};
var Ninja = Person.makeSubclass();
Ninja.prototype._init= function() {
Person.prototype._init.call(this, false);
};
Ninja.prototype.swingSword= function() {
return true;
};
var p= new Person(true);
p.dance(); // => true
var n = new Ninja();
n.dance(); // => false
n.swingSword(); // => true
// Should all be true
p instanceof Person &&
n instanceof Ninja && n instanceof Person
Superclass-calling is done by specifically naming the method you want and calling it, a bit like in Python. You could add a _super member to the constructor function if you wanted to avoid naming Person again (so you'd say Ninja._super.prototype._init.call, or perhaps Ninja._base._init.call).
JavaScript is prototype based and not class based. My recommendation is not to fight it and declare subtypes the JS way:
MyDerivedObj.prototype = new MySuperObj();
MyDerivedObj.prototype.constructor = MyDerivedObj;
See how far you can get without using inheritance at all. Treat it as a performance hack (to be applied reluctantly where genuinely necessary) rather than a design principle.
In an a highly dynamic language like JS, it is rarely necessary to know whether an object is a Person. You just need to know if it has a firstName property or an eatFood method. You don't often need to know if an object is an array; if it has a length property and some other properties named after integers, that's usually good enough (e.g. the Arguments object). "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
// give back a duck
return {
walk: function() { ... },
quack: function() { ... }
};
Yes, if you're making very large numbers of small objects, each with dozens of methods, then by all means assign those methods to the prototype to avoid the overhead of creating dozens of slots in every instance. But treat that as a way of reducing memory overhead - a mere optimisation. And do your users a favour by hiding your use of new behind some kind of factory function, so they don't even need to know how the object is created. They just need to know it has method foo or property bar.
(And note that you won't really be modelling classical inheritance in that scenario. It's merely the equivalent of defining a single class to get the efficiency of a shared vtable.)
Here's a ugly bit of Javascript it would be nice to find a workaround.
Javascript has no classes, and that is a good thing. But it implements fallback between objects in a rather ugly way. The foundational construct should be to have one object that, when a property fails to be found, it falls back to another object.
So if we want a to fall back to b we would want to do something like:
a = {sun:1};
b = {dock:2};
a.__fallback__ = b;
then
a.dock == 2;
But, Javascript instead provides a new operator and prototypes. So we do the far less elegant:
function A(sun) {
this.sun = sun;
};
A.prototype.dock = 2;
a = new A(1);
a.dock == 2;
But aside from elegance, this is also strictly less powerful, because it means that anything created with A gets the same fallback object.
What I would like to do is liberate Javascript from this artificial limitation and have the ability to give any individual object any other individual object as its fallback. That way I could keep the current behavior when it makes sense, but use object-level inheritance when that makes sense.
My initial approach is to create a dummy constructor function:
function setFallback(from_obj, to_obj) {
from_obj.constructor = function () {};
from_obj.constructor.prototype = to_obj;
}
a = {sun:1};
b = {dock:2};
setFallback(a, b);
But unfortunately:
a.dock == undefined;
Any ideas why this doesn't work, or any solutions for an implementation of setFallback?
(I'm running on V8, via node.js, in case this is platform dependent)
Edit:
I've posted a partial solution to this below, that works in the case of V8, but isn't general. I'd still appreciate a more general solution.
You could just use Object.create. It's part of ES5 so it's already available natively in some browsers. I believe it does exactly what you want.
Okay, some more research and cross-platform checking and there's some more information (though not a general solution).
Some implementations have basically what I did for my __fallback__. It is called __proto__ and is about perfect:
a = {sun:1};
b = {dock:2};
a.__proto__ = b;
a.dock == 2;
It seems that, what happens in when a new object is constructed is roughly this:
a = new Constructor(...args...);
produces behavior roughly equivalent to:
object.constructor = constructor;
object.__proto__ = constructor.prototype;
constructor.call(this, ...args...);
So it is no wonder that coming along later and adjusting an object's constructor or constructor.prototype has no effect, because the __proto__ setting is already set.
Now for my v8 application, I can just use __proto__, but I understand it that this isn't exposed on the IE VM (I don't run windows, so I can't tell). So it is not a general solution to the problem.