I'm trying to get my head around the module pattern in Javascript and have come across various different ways that I can see to do it. What is the difference (if any) between the following:
Person = function() {
return {
//...
}
};
person1 = Person();
function Person2() {
return {
//...
}
}
person2 = Person2();
person3 = function() {
return {
//...
}
}();
person4 = (function() {
return {
// ...
}
})();
person5 = (function() {
return {
// ...
}
}());
They all seem to do the same thing to me.
// This creates a function, which then returns an object.
// Person1 isn't available until the assignment block runs.
Person = function() {
return {
//...
}
};
person1 = Person();
// Same thing, different way of phrasing it.
// There are sometimes advantages of the
// two methods, but in this context they are the same.
// Person2 is available at compile time.
function Person2() {
return {
//...
}
}
person2 = Person2();
// This is identical to 'person4'
// In *this* context, the parens aren't needed
// but serve as a tool for whoever reads the code.
// (In other contexts you do need them.)
person3 = function() {
return {
//...
}
}();
// This is a short cut to create a function and then execute it,
// removing the need for a temporary variable.
// This is called the IIFE (Immediate Invoked Function Expression)
person4 = (function() {
return {
// ...
}
})();
// Exactly the same as Person3 and Person4 -- Explained below.
person5 = (function() {
return {
// ...
}
}());
In the contexts above,
= function() {}();
= (function() {}());
= (function() {})();
All do exactly the same thing.
I'll break them down.
function() {}();
<functionExpression>(); // Call a function expression.
(<functionExpression>()); // Wrapping it up in extra parens means nothing.
// Nothing more than saying (((1))) + (((2)))
(<functionExpression>)();
// We already know the extra parens means nothing, so remove them and you get
<functionExpression>(); // Which is the same as case1
Now, all of that said == why do you sometimes need parens?
Because this is a *function statement)
function test() {};
In order to make a function expression, you need some kind of operator before it.
(function test() {})
!function test() {}
+function test() {}
all work.
By standardizing on the parens, we are able to:
Return a value out of the IIFE
Use a consistent way to let the reader of the code know it is an IIFE, not a regular function.
The first two aren't a module pattern, but a factory function - there is a Person "constructor" that can be invoked multiple times. For the semantic difference see var functionName = function() {} vs function functionName() {}.
The other three are IIFEs, which all do exactly the same thing. For the syntax differences, see Explain the encapsulated anonymous function syntax and Location of parenthesis for auto-executing anonymous JavaScript functions?.
I've found a extremely detail page explaining this kind of stuff
Sth called IIFE
Hope will help.
Related
I am trying to write some externs to some Lua libraries that require to pass dictionary tables and I want to make them type safe.
So far, I have been declaring abstract classes with public inline constructors, but this gets tedious really fast:
abstract JobOpts(Table<String, Dynamic>) {
public inline function new(command:String, args:Array<String>) {
this = Table.create(null, {
command: command,
arguments: Table.create(args)
});
}
}
Is there a better way that allows me to keep things properly typed but that does not require that much boilerplate?
Please note that typedefs and anonymous structures are not valid options, because they introduce nasty fields in the created table and also do a function execution to assign a metatable to them:
--typedef X = {cmd: String}
_hx_o({__fields__={cmd=true},cmd="Yo"})
My abstract code example compiles to a clean lua table, but it is a lot of boilerplate
Some targets support #:nativeGen to strip Haxe-specific metadata from objects, but this does not seem to be the case for typedefs on Lua target. Fortunately, Haxe has a robust macro system so you can make the code write itself. Say,
Test.hx:
import lua.Table;
class Test {
public static function main() {
var q = new JobOpts("cmd", ["a", "b"]);
Sys.println(q);
}
}
#:build(TableBuilder.build())
abstract JobOpts(Table<String, Dynamic>) {
extern public inline function new(command:String, args:Array<String>) this = throw "no macro!";
}
TableBuilder.hx:
import haxe.macro.Context;
import haxe.macro.Expr;
class TableBuilder {
public static macro function build():Array<Field> {
var fields = Context.getBuildFields();
for (field in fields) {
if (field.name != "_new") continue; // look for new()
var f = switch (field.kind) { // ... that's a function
case FFun(_f): _f;
default: continue;
}
// abstract "constructors" transform `this = val;`
// into `{ var this; this = val; return this; }`
var val = switch (f.expr.expr) {
case EBlock([_decl, macro this = $x, _ret]): x;
default: continue;
}
//
var objFields:Array<ObjectField> = [];
for (arg in f.args) {
var expr = macro $i{arg.name};
if (arg.type.match(TPath({ name: "Array", pack: [] } ))) {
// if the argument's an array, make an unwrapper for it
expr = macro lua.Table.create($expr, null);
}
objFields.push({ field: arg.name, expr: expr });
}
var objExpr:Expr = { expr: EObjectDecl(objFields), pos: Context.currentPos() };
val.expr = (macro lua.Table.create(null, $objExpr)).expr;
}
return fields;
}
}
And thus...
Test.main = function()
local this1 = ({command = "cmd", args = ({"a","b"})});
local q = this1;
_G.print(Std.string(q));
end
Do note, however, that Table.create is a bit of a risky function - you will only be able to pass in array literals, not variables containing arrays. This can be remedied by making a separate "constructor" function with the same logic but without array➜Table.create unwrapping.
Consider this class that is used as a data model in a Model-View-Controller scenario (I'm using TypeScript 3.5):
export class ViewSource {
private viewName : string;
private viewStruct : IViewStruct;
private rows : any[];
private rowIndex : number|null;
constructor(viewName : string) {
// Same as this.setViewName(viewName);
this.viewName = viewName;
this.viewStruct = api.meta.get_view_struct(viewName);
if (!this.viewStruct) {
throw new Error("Clould not load structure for view, name=" + (viewName));
}
this.rows = [];
this.rowIndex = null;
}
public setViewName = (viewName: string) => {
this.viewName = viewName;
this.viewStruct = api.meta.get_view_struct(viewName);
if (!this.viewStruct) {
throw new Error("Clould not load structure for view, name=" + (viewName));
}
this.rows = [];
this.rowIndex = null;
}
public getViewStruct = ():IViewStruct => { return this.viewStruct; }
public getCellValue = (rowIndex: number, columnName: string) : any => {
const row = this.rows[rowIndex] as any;
return row[columnName];
}
}
This is not a complete class, I only included a few methods to demonstrate the problem. ViewSource is a mutable object. It can be referenced from multiple parts of the application. (Please note that being a mutable object is a fact. This question is not about choosing a different data model that uses immutable objects.)
Whenever I want to change the state of a ViewSource object, I call its setViewName method. It does work, but it is also very clumsy. Every line of code in the constructor is repeated in the setViewName method.
Of course, it is not possible to use this constructor:
constructor(viewName : string) {
this.setViewName(viewName);
}
because that results in TS2564 error:
Property 'viewStruct' has no initializer and is not definitely assigned in the constructor.ts(2564)
I do not want to ignore TS2564 errors in general. But I also do not want to repeat all attribute initializations. I have some other classes with even more properties (>10), and the corresponding code duplication looks ugly, and it is error prone. (I might forget that some things have to bee modified in two methods...)
So how can I avoid duplicating many lines of code?
I think the best method to avoid code duplication in this case would be to create a function that contains the initialization code, but instead of setting the value, it retunrs the value that need to be set.
Something like the following:
export class ViewSource {
private viewName : string;
private viewStruct : IViewStruct;
private rows : any[];
private rowIndex : number|null;
constructor(viewName : string) {
const {newViewName, newViewStruct, newRows, newRowIndex} = this.getNewValues(viewName);
this.viewName = newViewName;
this.newViewStruct = newViewStruct;
// Rest of initialization goes here
}
public setViewName = (viewName: string) => {
const {newViewName, newViewStruct, newRows, newRowIndex} = this.getNewValues(viewName);
// Rest of initialization goes here
}
privat getNewValues = (viewName) => {
const newViewName = viewName;
const newViewStruct = api.meta.get_view_struct(viewName);
if (!newViewStruct) {
throw new Error("Clould not load structure for view, name=" + (viewName));
}
const newRows = [];
const newRowIndex = null;
return {newViewName, newViewStruct, newRows, newRowIndex};
}
}
This way the only thing you duplicate is setting the values, not calculating them, and if the values calculations will get more complicated you can simply expand the returned value.
A less complex approach than the accepted answer is to use the //#ts-ignore[1] comment above each member that is initialized elsewhere.
Consider this contrived example
class Foo {
// #ts-ignore TS2564 - initialized in the init method
a: number;
// #ts-ignore TS2564 - initialized in the init method
b: string;
// #ts-ignore TS2564 - initialized in the init method
c: number;
constructor(a: number, b: string) {
if(a === 0) {
this.init(a,b,100);
} else {
this.init(a,b,4912);
}
}
private init(a: number, b: string, c: number): void {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
this.c = c;
}
}
Since TypeScript 3.9 there exists the //#ts-expect-error[2] comment, but I think #ts-ignore is suitable.
[1] Suppress errors in .ts files
[2] TS expect errors comment
Since TypeScript 2.7 you can use the definite assignment assertion modifier which means adding an exclamation mark between the variable name and the colon:
private viewName!: string
This has the same effect as adding a // #ts-ignore TS2564 comment above it as #RamblinRose suggested.
Is there a native (language supported) lazy evaluation syntax? Something like lazy val in Scala.
I've gone through the docs, and could not find anything. There is only a chapter about "lazily loading a library", but it's not what I am asking.
Based on this research I incline to believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that currently there is no such thing. But maybe you know of any plans or feature requests which will provide the functionality? Or maybe it was considered and rejected by the Dart team?
If indeed there is no native support for this, then what is the best practice (best syntax) for implementing lazy evaluation? An example would be appreciated.
Edit:
The benefits of the feature that I am looking for are mostly the same as in implementation in other languages: Scala's lazy val or C#'s Lazy<T> or Hack's __Memorize attribute:
concise syntax
delayed computation until the value is needed
cache the result (the by-need laziness)
don't break pure functional paradigm (explanation below)
A simple example:
class Fibonacci {
final int n;
int _res = null;
int get result {
if (null == _res) {
_res = _compute(this.n);
}
return _res;
}
Fibonacci(this.n);
int _compute(n) {
// ...
}
}
main(List<String> args) async {
print(new Fibonacci(5).result);
print(new Fibonacci(9).result);
}
The getter is very verbose and has a repetitive code. Moreover I can't make the constructor const because the caching variable _res has to be computed on demand. I imagine that if I had a Scala-like lazy feature then I would also have language support for having a constant constructor. That's thanks to the fact, that the lazy evaluated _res is referentially transparent, and would not be in the way.
class Fibonacci {
final int n;
int lazy result => _compute(this.n);
const Fibonacci(this.n); // notice the `const`
int _compute(n) {
// ...
}
}
main(List<String> args) async {
// now these makes more sense:
print(const Fibonacci(5).result);
print(const Fibonacci(9).result);
}
Update 2021
Lazy initialization is now part of dart from the release 2.12.
Simply add late modifier to the variable declaration
late MyClass obj = MyClass();
And this object will be initialized only when it is first used.
From the docs:
Dart 2.12 added the late modifier, which has two use cases:
Declaring a non-nullable variable that’s initialized after its
declaration.
Lazily initializing a variable.
Checkout the example here:
https://dartpad.dev/?id=50f143391193a2d0b8dc74a5b85e79e3&null_safety=true
class A {
String text = "Hello";
A() {
print("Lazily initialized");
}
sayHello() {
print(text);
}
}
class Runner {
late A a = A();
run() async {
await Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: 3));
print("First message");
a.sayHello();
}
}
Here class A will be initialized only after "First message" has been displayed.
update2
From #lrn s comment - using an Expando for caching makes it work with const:
class Lazy<T> {
static final _cache = new Expando();
final Function _func;
const Lazy(this._func);
T call() {
var result = _cache[this];
if (identical(this, result)) return null;
if (result != null) return result;
result = _func();
_cache[this] = (result == null) ? this : result;
return result;
}
}
defaultFunc() {
print("Default Function Called");
return 42;
}
main([args, function = const Lazy(defaultFunc)]) {
print(function());
print(function());
}
Try it in DartPad
update
A reusable Lazy<T> could look like below in Dart but that also doesn't work with const and can't be used in field initializers if the calculation needs to refer instance members (this.xxx).
void main() {
var sc = new SomeClass();
print('new');
print(sc.v);
}
class SomeClass {
var _v = new Lazy<int>(() {
print('x');
return 10;
});
int get v => _v();
}
class Lazy<T> {
final Function _func;
bool _isEvaluated = false;
Lazy(this._func);
T _value;
T call() {
if(!_isEvaluated) {
if(_func != null) {
_value = _func();
}
_isEvaluated = true;
}
return _value;
}
}
Try it in DartPad
original
Dart version of http://matt.might.net/articles/implementing-laziness/ using a closure to lazy evaluate:
void main() {
var x = () {
print ("foo");
return 10;
}();
print("bar");
print(x);
// will print foo, then bar then 10.
print('===');
// But, the following Scala program:
x = () {
print("foo");
return 10;
};
print ("bar");
print (x());
// will print bar, then foo, then 10, since it delays the computation of x until it’s actually needed.
}
Try it in DartPad
Update
int _val;
int get val => _val ??= 9;
Thanks #Nightscape
Old
I think this little snippet might help you...
int _val;
int get val => _val ?? _val = 9;
I'm having to restructure some ancient code, and there's quite a bit of it in lots of different files. The approach is to use the revealing module pattern, as described in JavaScript Module Pattern: In-Depth (section Cross-File Private State).
The first function expression works great, and I can see in Firebug that the function components are also assigned correctly in the second block. But then the variable suddenly ends up undefined.
I put together a simplified example, and the console shows the variable is undefined after the second assignment.
var test = (function ($, ns, undefined)
{
function test1()
{
console.log("executing test1");
ns.testx.test2();
}
return { test1: test1 };
}(jQuery, test || {}));
console.log(test);
var test = (function ($, ns, undefined)
{
ns.testx = (function ()
{
function test2()
{
console.log("executing test2");
}
return { test2: test2 }
})();
}(jQuery, test || {}));
console.log(test);
// DOM ready
$(function ()
{
test.test1();
});
Several variations, such as defining the variable just once at the top don't work either. If the two function expressions are swapped, test 1 is executed but ns.testx is undefined.
I fear I'm missing the blindingly obvious and would really like to understand why this does not work. I also need to get it to work, so any help is greatly appreciated (merging the files into one is not an option).
Try
var test = (function ($, ns, undefined)
{
function test1()
{
console.log("executing test1");
ns.testx.test2();
}
ns.test1 = test1;
return ns;
}(jQuery, test || {}));
console.log(test);
var test = (function ($, ns, undefined)
{
ns.testx = (function ()
{
function test2()
{
console.log("executing test2");
}
return { test2: test2 }
})();
return ns;
/*
This will be
{
test1: test1,
testx: {
test2: test2
}
}
*/
}(jQuery, test || {}));
Does Dart support the concept of variable functions/methods? So to call a method by its name stored in a variable.
For example in PHP this can be done not only for methods:
// With functions...
function foo()
{
echo 'Running foo...';
}
$function = 'foo';
$function();
// With classes...
public static function factory($view)
{
$class = 'View_' . ucfirst($view);
return new $class();
}
I did not found it in the language tour or API. Are others ways to do something like this?
To store the name of a function in variable and call it later you will have to wait until reflection arrives in Dart (or get creative with noSuchMethod). You can however store functions directly in variables like in JavaScript
main() {
var f = (String s) => print(s);
f("hello world");
}
and even inline them, which come in handy if you are doing recusion:
main() {
g(int i) {
if(i > 0) {
print("$i is larger than zero");
g(i-1);
} else {
print("zero or negative");
}
}
g(10);
}
The functions stored can then be passed around to other functions
main() {
var function;
function = (String s) => print(s);
doWork(function);
}
doWork(f(String s)) {
f("hello world");
}
I may not be the best explainer but you may consider this example to have a wider scope of the assigning functions to a variable and also using a closure function as a parameter of a function.
void main() {
// a closure function assigned to a variable.
var fun = (int) => (int * 2);
// a variable which is assigned with the function which is written below
var newFuncResult = newFunc(9, fun);
print(x); // Output: 27
}
//Below is a function with two parameter (1st one as int) (2nd as a closure function)
int newFunc(int a, fun) {
int x = a;
int y = fun(x);
return x + y;
}