i'm using JSLint.NET with lodash. Code like this
var first = _.first(myArray);
will return a Unexpected dangling '_' in '_' error.
How can I exclude this one from being checked?
You want nomen.
/*jslint nomen:true */
var myArray = [],
_ = {},
first;
first = _.first(myArray);
I mean, obviously this assumes you've got a good declaration for _ and myArray somewhere to take the place of the declarations I added, above. A simple underscore is a pretty nasty variable name, but the code above validates on jslint.com. Guessing you're using Underscore.js Lodash, as you mentioned, which means you're probably going to use the global tag instead.
/*jslint nomen:true */
/*globals _ */
var myArray = [],
first;
first = _.first(myArray);
Related
I working on a language similar to ruby called gaiman and I'm using PEG.js to generate the parser.
Do you know if there is a way to implement heredocs with proper indentation?
xxx = <<<END
hello
world
END
the output should be:
"hello
world"
I need this because this code doesn't look very nice:
def foo(arg) {
if arg == "here" then
return <<<END
xxx
xxx
END
end
end
this is a function where the user wants to return:
"xxx
xxx"
I would prefer the code to look like this:
def foo(arg) {
if arg == "here" then
return <<<END
xxx
xxx
END
end
end
If I trim all the lines user will not be able to use a string with leading spaces when he wants. Does anyone know if PEG.js allows this?
I don't have any code yet for heredocs, just want to be sure if something that I want is possible.
EDIT:
So I've tried to implement heredocs and the problem is that PEG doesn't allow back-references.
heredoc = "<<<" marker:[\w]+ "\n" text:[\s\S]+ marker {
return text.join('');
}
It says that the marker is not defined. As for trimming I think I can use location() function
I don't think that's a reasonable expectation for a parser generator; few if any would be equal to the challenge.
For a start, recognising the here-string syntax is inherently context-sensitive, since the end-delimiter must be a precise copy of the delimiter provided after the <<< token. So you would need a custom lexical analyser, and that means that you need a parser generator which allows you to use a custom lexical analyser. (So a parser generator which assumes you want a scannerless parser might not be the optimal choice.)
Recognising the end of the here-string token shouldn't be too difficult, although you can't do it with a single regular expression. My approach would be to use a custom scanning function which breaks the here-string into a series of lines, concatenating them as it goes until it reaches a line containing only the end-delimiter.
Once you've recognised the text of the literal, all you need to normalise the spaces in the way you want is the column number at which the <<< starts. With that, you can trim each line in the string literal. So you only need a lexical scanner which accurately reports token position. Trimming wouldn't normally be done inside the generated lexical scanner; rather, it would be the associated semantic action. (Equally, it could be a semantic action in the grammar. But it's always going to be code that you write.)
When you trim the literal, you'll need to deal with the cases in which it is impossible, because the user has not respected the indentation requirement. And you'll need to do something with tab characters; getting those right probably means that you'll want a lexical scanner which computes visible column positions rather than character offsets.
I don't know if peg.js corresponds with those requirements, since I don't use it. (I did look at the documentation, and failed to see any indication as to how you might incorporate a custom scanner function. But that doesn't mean there isn't a way to do it.) I hope that the discussion above at least lets you check the detailed documentation for the parser generator you want to use, and otherwise find a different parser generator which will work for you in this use case.
Here is the implementation of heredocs in Peggy successor to PEG.js that is not maintained anymore. This code was based on the GitHub issue.
heredoc = "<<<" begin:marker "\n" text:($any_char+ "\n")+ _ end:marker (
&{ return begin === end; }
/ '' { error(`Expected matched marker "${begin}", but marker "${end}" was found`); }
) {
const loc = location();
const min = loc.start.column - 1;
const re = new RegExp(`\\s{${min}}`);
return text.map(line => {
return line[0].replace(re, '');
}).join('\n');
}
any_char = (!"\n" .)
marker_char = (!" " !"\n" .)
marker "Marker" = $marker_char+
_ "whitespace"
= [ \t\n\r]* { return []; }
EDIT: above didn't work with another piece of code after heredoc, here is better grammar:
{ let heredoc_begin = null; }
heredoc = "<<<" beginMarker "\n" text:content endMarker {
const loc = location();
const min = loc.start.column - 1;
const re = new RegExp(`^\\s{${min}}`, 'mg');
return {
type: 'Literal',
value: text.replace(re, '')
};
}
__ = (!"\n" !" " .)
marker 'Marker' = $__+
beginMarker = m:marker { heredoc_begin = m; }
endMarker = "\n" " "* end:marker &{ return heredoc_begin === end; }
content = $(!endMarker .)*
I have stumbled upon this line of code and I am not sure what the [ ? ] part represents (my guess is it's a sort of a wildcard but I searched it for a while and couldn't find anything):
['?'] = function() return is_canadian and "eh" or "" end
I understand that RHS is a functional ternary operator. I am curious about the LHS and what it actually is.
Edit: reference (2nd example):
http://lua-users.org/wiki/SwitchStatement
Actually, it is quite simple.
local t = {
a = "aah",
b = "bee",
c = "see",
It maps each letter to a sound pronunciation. Here, a need to be pronounced aah and b need to be pronounced bee and so on. Some letters have a different pronunciation if in american english or canadian english. So not every letter can be mapped to a single sound.
z = function() return is_canadian and "zed" or "zee" end,
['?'] = function() return is_canadian and "eh" or "" end
In the mapping, the letter z and the letter ? have a different prononciation in american english or canadian english. When the program will try to get the prononciation of '?', it will calls a function to check whether the user want to use canadian english or another english and the function will returns either zed or zee.
Finally, the 2 following notations have the same meaning:
local t1 = {
a = "aah",
b = "bee",
["?"] = "bee"
}
local t2 = {
["a"] = "aah",
["b"] = "bee",
["?"] = "bee"
}
If you look closely at the code linked in the question, you'll see that this line is part of a table constructor (the part inside {}). It is not a full statement on its own. As mentioned in the comments, it would be a syntax error outside of a table constructor. ['?'] is simply a string key.
The other posts alreay explained what that code does, so let me explain why it needs to be written that way.
['?'] = function() return is_canadian and "eh" or "" end is embedded in {}
It is part of a table constructor and assigns a function value to the string key '?'
local tbl = {a = 1} is syntactic sugar for local tbl = {['a'] = 1} or
local tbl = {}
tbl['a'] = 1
String keys that allow that convenient syntax must follow Lua's lexical conventions and hence may only contain letters, digits and underscore. They must not start with a digit.
So local a = {? = 1} is not possible. It will cause a syntax error unexpected symbol near '?' Therefor you have to explicitly provide a string value in square brackets as in local a = {['?'] = 1}
they gave each table element its own line
local a = {
1,
2,
3
}
This greatly improves readability for long table elements or very long tables and allows you maintain a maximum line length.
You'll agree that
local tbl = {
z = function() return is_canadian and "zed" or "zee" end,
['?'] = function() return is_canadian and "eh" or "" end
}
looks a lot cleaner than
local tbl = {z = function() return is_canadian and "zed" or "zee" end,['?'] = function() return is_canadian and "eh" or "" end}
Below is a ES5 shim for JS binding.I dont understand self.apply in the bound function.
I know how to use apply method, but where is self pointing to in this case ? It it supposed to be a
function, but here self looks like an object.
if ( !Function.prototype.bind ) {
Function.prototype.bind = function( obj ) {
var slice = [].slice,
args = slice.call(arguments, 1),
self = this,
nop = function () {},
bound = function () {
return self.apply( this instanceof nop ? this : ( obj || {} ), // self in this line is supposed
to // represent a function ?
args.concat( slice.call(arguments) ) );
};
nop.prototype = self.prototype;
bound.prototype = new nop();
return bound;
};
}
self is being used in the shim you have listed to accommodate the fact that this changes along with scope changes. Within the direct scope of the Function.prototype.bind function this will refer to the object on which the bind function was called.
Once you enter the scope of the nested bound function this has changed; so the author has assigned self = this within the bind function to allow the value of this at the time bind is called to remain available to the bound function via lexical scoping (closure).
Scoping within JavaScript can get pretty complicated; for a detailed explanation take a look at this article.
Everything you wanted to know about JavaScript scope.
Have in mind that in javascript almost everything is an object.
So you have it right there:
self = this
So, self is not representing anything, self is the instance.
I'm just starting to write my first FF extension using javascript modules (rather than trying an XPCOM component) but I'm fuzzy on what happens when a jsm is loaded.
Q: Does the file scope act as a closure for non-exported symbols, or are unreferenced symbols simply garbage collected?
For an example, could/should a module be written as follows?
//modules/myModule.js
var EXPORTED_SYMBOLS = [ 'foo', 'bar' ];
var data;
function foo(){
return data;
}
function bar(newData){
data = newData;
}
importing it somewhere else as:
var aNS = {};
Components.utils.import("resource://myext/myModule.js", aNS);
aNS.bar('it works?');
alert(aNS.foo()); //alert: 'it works?'
Even if a module can be written this way, is there a good reason not to?
It acts in closure manner, but only if you're referencing it somewhere. In my extension I have something like:
var EXPORTED_SYMBOLS = ['foo'];
let cacheService = Components.classes["#mozilla.org/network/cache-service;1"]
.getService(Components.interfaces.nsICacheService);
let foo = {
svc : cacheService,
dosomethingwithit : function(){this.svc.somemethod();}
}
So because it is referenced by foo.svc my cacheService is well and alive. If I wasn't referencing it anywhere it would've been garbage collected - which is to no surprise since if it's not used who cares.
But now thinking a bit more about it, I'm just wandering why I did it this way. Doesn't really makes much sense, or difference. I could've had something like:
var EXPORTED_SYMBOLS = ['foo'];
function something(){
this.svc = Components.classes["#mozilla.org/network/cache-service;1"]
.getService(Components.interfaces.nsICacheService);
}
let foo = new something();
I think I just liked the looks of the first approach more.
Just wondering what's the meaning of ":" (colon symbol) on this Javascript code below?
var switchToTarget : Transform;
Thanks,
Gino
Edit: Reading more about Unity, they have created a really custom implementation of JavaScript(1) for their scripting engine, which is compiled and it has a lot of strongly typing features, it looks like ActionScript/ES4, but it isn't, the language is called UnityScript.
The colon is used by this implementation to denote the type of an identifier, e.g.:
class Person{
var name : String;
function Person(n : String){
name = n;
}
function kiss(p : Person){
Debug.Log(name + " kissed " + p.name + "!");
}
}
See also:
UnityScript Reference
Head First into Unity with JavaScript
Scripting Overview
Unity Answers
The code you posted is not valid ECMAScript 3, (which is the most widely implemented standard), that will simply give you a SyntaxError.
The colon symbol in JavaScript has only a few usages:
The object literal syntax:
var obj = { foo: 'bar' };
The conditional operator:
var test = condition ? 'foo' : 'bar';
Labeled statements:
loop1: while (true) {
while (true) {
break loop1; // stop outer loop
}
}
Case and default clauses of the switch statement:
switch (value) {
case "foo":
//..
break;
default:
//..
break;
}
It can appear on RegExp literals:
var re = /(?:)/; // non-capturing group...
It's Adobe ActionScript, which is a derivative of javascript.
var switchToTarget : Transform; // declare var switchToTarget of type Transform.
var hello : Text = new Text(); // declare var hello of type Text and initialize it.
http://www.adobe.com/livedocs/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/flash/geom/Transform.html
I'm not sure if it's part of standard JavaScript, but it declares the type of a variable.
var myVar:Type;
in that flavor of JavaScript would be equivalent to this in several strongly-typed languages:
Type myVar;