new self invoking function
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES FOR BOLLYWOOD FANS
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)
From: Hubert Kauker on 9 Aug 2010 04:13 On Jul 30, 2:39 am, Jesse <imje...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > myNamespace = {}; //namespace for holding any objects/functions > > //helpModule as an example > myNamespace.HelpModule = new (function(){ > this.abc = '123'; > //lots of other code in here... > return this; > > })(); What we have here is the application of the 'new' operator to an anonymous constructor function. Seems entirely legitimate to me and not at all obscure. However, I would drop the 'return' statement inside the body. -- Hubert
From: Ry Nohryb on 9 Aug 2010 04:47 On Aug 9, 10:13 am, Hubert Kauker <hubert.kau...(a)travelbasys.de> wrote: > On Jul 30, 2:39 am, Jesse <imje...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > myNamespace = {}; //namespace for holding any objects/functions > > > //helpModule as an example > > myNamespace.HelpModule = new (function(){ > > this.abc = '123'; > > //lots of other code in here... > > return this; > > > })(); > > What we have here is the application of the 'new' operator to an > anonymous constructor function. > Seems entirely legitimate to me and not at all obscure. It's not too obscure, but IMO this is better (clearer): myNamespace.HelpModule= {}; myNamespace.HelpModule.abc= "123"; myNamespace.HelpModule.aMethod= function(){ ... }; ....etc > However, I would drop the 'return' statement inside the body. Yep, it's not needed. The (function () {})() pattern is being used too often gratuitously, for no reason, such as in this FAQ entry: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/b9aede5baeb64755# var numberToFixed = (function() { return toFixedString; (...) -- Jorge.
From: Ry Nohryb on 9 Aug 2010 04:54 On Aug 9, 10:13 am, Hubert Kauker <hubert.kau...(a)travelbasys.de> wrote: > On Jul 30, 2:39 am, Jesse <imje...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > myNamespace = {}; //namespace for holding any objects/functions > > > //helpModule as an example > > myNamespace.HelpModule = new (function(){ > > this.abc = '123'; > > //lots of other code in here... > > return this; > > > })(); > > What we have here is the application of the 'new' operator to an > anonymous constructor function. > Seems entirely legitimate to me and not at all obscure. Ah, and that extra () at the end aren't wanted: it should be new function(){}; or new (function(){}); but not new (function(){})(); -- Jorge.
From: Evertjan. on 9 Aug 2010 07:17 Garrett Smith wrote on 09 aug 2010 in comp.lang.javascript: > Of all possible arguments could have been made, that one is truly lousy. > > Specification terminology is absolutely appropriate for posts on > comp.lang.javascript. Arguments in this NG's terminology are the parameters of a function. ;-) -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: williamc on 9 Aug 2010 08:11
On 7/29/2010 11:59 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Jul 29, 11:38 pm, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: >> On Jul 30, 10:39 am, Jesse <imje...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> .... >> A function's this keyword has nothing to do with scope, it is a >> reference to an object. It is set by the call to the function, you >> can't control it by how you create the function other than by limiting >> how it is called. > > Thanks for picking that up. Somehow I missed that offending use of > the term. It seems to be so pervasive that virtually every developer > who uses the "major" libraries thinks that scope is the - this - > object; which leaves the question of what they would call the concept > of scope (if they are even aware of the concept). > Well, what is the correct way to think about scope in Javascript? I tend to think of it as global |_ function |_ inner function |_ inner, inner function |_ etc... but that's probably naive. -- --williamc |