How can I have one function call another function dynamically?

[Randell D.]

Folks,

I'm sure this can be done legally, and not thru tricks of the trade - I
hope someone can help.

I'm writing a 'tool' (a function) which can be used generically in any
of my projects. When it completes, it can call a success, or a failure
function. The names of these success, or failure functions will differ,
and I'd like to know how I can pass the name of a function to my tool,
and how my tool can call the function, using that name...

Roughly speaking I want to have something like

function my_engine(succe ss_function_nam e, failure_functio n_name)
{
// Processing code here chews data

// Then...
if(myResult==tr ue)
{ success_functio n_name(); }
else
{ failure_functio n_name(); }
}

Anybody got any ideas/suggestions? I'm sure there was a js method that
I could use but I can't find reference to it in my O'Reilly JavaScript
pocket reference...

All help, via the newsgroup (so all can learn) will be greatly appreciated,

Thanks,
Randell D.

[Robert]

Randell D. wrote:

and I'd like to know how I can pass the name of a function to my tool,
and how my tool can call the function, using that name...

function callFunction(na me)
{
var f = new Function(name+" ()");
f();
}

But maybe it would be more convenient to just pass the function itself
as a parameter...

Robert.

[ASM]

Randell D. wrote:

Folks,

I'm sure this can be done legally, and not thru tricks of the trade - I
hope someone can help.

I'm writing a 'tool' (a function) which can be used generically in any
of my projects. When it completes, it can call a success, or a failure
function. The names of these success, or failure functions will differ,
and I'd like to know how I can pass the name of a function to my tool,
and how my tool can call the function, using that name...

Roughly speaking I want to have something like

function my_engine(succe ss_function_nam e, failure_functio n_name)
{
// Processing code here chews data

// Then...
if(myResult==tr ue)
{ success_functio n_name(); }
try :
Function(succes s_function_name );
with calling
my_engine('succ ess', 'failure');

or
{ success_functio n_name }
or ?
{ eval(success_fu nction_name) }
and calling :
my_engine('succ ess()', 'failure()');
else
{ failure_functio n_name(); }
}

--
Stephane Moriaux et son [moins] vieux Mac

[VK]

> I'd like to know how I can pass the name of a function to my tool,

and how my tool can call the function, using that name...

It is very simple. Just pass *function references*, not function names.

<script type="text/javascript">
function f1(fun1,fun2) {
fun1();
fun2()
}

function f2() {
alert('f2')
}

function f3() {
alert('f3');
}

function init(){
f1(f2,f3);
}

window.onload = init;
</script>

[VK]

Robert wrote:

function callFunction(na me)
{
var f = new Function(name+" ()");
f();
}

What a hey is that? We're talking JavaScript here, not RobertScript :-)

Do you mind at the very least:
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsobjfuncti on.asp>

[Duncan Booth]

Randell D. wrote:

I'm writing a 'tool' (a function) which can be used generically in any
of my projects. When it completes, it can call a success, or a failure
function. The names of these success, or failure functions will differ,
and I'd like to know how I can pass the name of a function to my tool,
and how my tool can call the function, using that name...
Passing the name of a function is the wrong thing to do here. Instead you
should just pass the function itself.

Roughly speaking I want to have something like

function my_engine(succe ss_function_nam e, failure_functio n_name)
{
// Processing code here chews data

// Then...
if(myResult==tr ue)
{ success_functio n_name(); }
else
{ failure_functio n_name(); }
}

Just do it this way:

function my_engine(succe ss_function, failure_functio n)
{
// Processing code here chews data

// Then...
if(myResult==tr ue)
{ success_functio n(); }
else
{ failure_functio n(); }
}

This way the functions don't actually have to be accessible through global
names, you can also use anonymous functions, or functions defined inside
other functions.

[Robert]

VK wrote:

Robert wrote:

function callFunction(na me)
{
var f = new Function(name+" ()");
f();
}

What a hey is that? We're talking JavaScript here, not RobertScript :-)

Do you mind at the very least:
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsobjfuncti on.asp>

Sorry? I did suggest that passing the function reference is probably a
better idea.
But what do you find wrong with my example? Are you saying it is not
valid JavaScript?

[VK]

> Are you saying it is not valid JavaScript?

*Roughly* that.

var functionRef = new Function(arg1, arg2, arg3, ..., argN);

where all args except the last one treated as function arguments, and
the last one as function body.
so:

var helloWorld = new Function("alert ('Hello world!);");

equals to

function helloWorld() {
alert('Hello world!);
}
var alertType = new Function("obj", "alert(typeof(o bj));");

equals to

function alertType(obj) {
alert(typeof(ob j));
}

As such Function will be evaluated on each call, it's performance is
lower than with standard function(). So it's suggested to use it only
if you really need to create run-time functions from the scratch.

[Michael Winter]

On 15/07/2005 11:54, Robert wrote:

[snip]

It could not have been done using a literal function to my knowledge.
No, it couldn't.
Anyway,
eval(name+"()")
is a better solution.

No, it isn't. Passing a function object reference is much better, as
David describes, and it's what the OP should use.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Yann-Erwan Perio]

Robert wrote:

Hi,

eval(name+"()")
is a better solution.

Using "eval" as property accessing technique isn't really a good
practice, in the posted case the function is called from within a
function iself called directly, so something like
this[name]();
would be a better solution:-)

Anyway passing the reference, as yourself and others have suggested, is
the best - the OP just wasn't probably aware that functions are
first-class objects in javascript...
Cheers,
Yep.