473,320 Members | 2,162 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

Odd behavior involving function.apply()

I've been working with the JavaScript Shell in Firefox on a
mad-scientist problem I've had in my head. Assume a function named
'object' that is designed to create an object based on a prototype
object -- the semantic is that the returned object prototypally
inherits from the argument 'o'.

function object(initializer, o) {
if (!o) o = Object;
function f() {}
f.prototype = o;
obj = new f();
obj.__progenitor = o;

if (initializer) {
if ((typeof(initializer)).toLowerCase() != "function") throw
"Expected initializer to be of type function, got type " +
typeof(initializer);
initializer.apply(obj);
}

return obj;
}

Now assume these uses of the object() function:

SimplePattern = object();

Prototype = object(
function() {
this.prototypeValue = "Yo";
this.message = function(message) {alert(message);}
},
Object
);

Thing = object(
function() {
var secret = 42;
var _outer = this;

_outer.GiveUpSecret = function() { return secret; }
},
Prototype
);

These all produce the results I would expect. Typical prototypal
inheritance.

But if I alter the Thing definition's initializer to include a member
that should inherit from Prototype,

Thing = object(
function() {
var secret = 42;
var _outer = this;

_outer.GiveUpSecret = function() { return secret; }
_outer.subObject = object(
function initializer() {
var _inner = this;
_inner.subObjectProp = 73;
},
Prototype
);
},
Prototype
);

Thing all of a sudden is -missing- its GiveUpSecret() function, has no
subObject member, and reports its prototypeValue as "Yo".

Why doesn't this work more intuitively?

--
Jeff S.

Jul 18 '06 #1
3 1374
Jeff Stewart wrote:
<snipped long, complicated test case>

Why doesn't this work more intuitively?
The best kind of irony is unintentional irony. That made me laugh out
loud :-)

As for your problem - your code looks like a scope quagmire to me.
Shouldn't you be assigning properties to your object rather than
creating them as local variables (as with "secret")? I don't fully
understand what you're trying to do - are you trying to create an
*object* that inherits from Prototype, or a new *type* that inherits
from Prototype?

Can you explain what you're trying to do? Maybe there's an analogous
pattern in a different language that you're trying to emulate? Whatever
it is, there is probably a simpler way.

Jeremy
Jul 19 '06 #2
The 'secret' is designed to illustrate that a hidden member could be
introduced into the created object using this pattern. It's based on
what I read on Crockford.com.

As for the intent, considering JavaScript really doesn't have "types",
I'm trying to create a new -object-. I'm obsessed lately with the idea
that JavaScript 1) was never designed to support classes (yet everyone
tries to force it to), 2) supports -prototypal- inheritance instead of
class-based inheritance, and 3) prototypes are -not- classes.

So the object() function is supposed to create either 1) objects with
an "instance" semantic attached to them, or 2) patterns -- prototypes
-- upon which other objects are based. But it should be composable --
again, the philosophy I'm adopting is that objects inherit from
prototypes, not classes/types. And, thusly, an object/instance created
from a prototype should be capable of acting as a prototype itself.

object() should be the root of this functionality: any source object,
by virtue of JavaScript, can be used as a prototype to create any other
object which can be said to "inherit" from the source object. I'm
trying to get back to basics amidst all the half-baked classical
inheritance implementations that do many things well but not the whole
thing with excellence. But though I'm getting back to basics, I still
want to try and introduce things like information hiding into the mix.

object() is a very hairy mutation of the function Crockford discusses
here: http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html. I wasn't
satisfied with that method because it didn't support a more intuititve
initialization mechanism.

I had something I liked until I tried nested creation. In this
particular problem, I can't understand how the addition of one
property, subObject can so dramatically alter its owner object. I
thought I'd isolated all my execution contexts properly by latching
onto 'this' in all the right places using local variables, but somehow
the -nested- call to object() ended up modifying the object that
-owned- the call. How was that boundary violated?

As for it being a scope quagmire, well, in my defense, it -is-
JavaScript. Scope stopped being an easy concept when I was introduced
to the wild world of closures. :)

--
Jeff S.
Jeremy wrote:
Jeff Stewart wrote:
<snipped long, complicated test case>

Why doesn't this work more intuitively?

The best kind of irony is unintentional irony. That made me laugh out
loud :-)

As for your problem - your code looks like a scope quagmire to me.
Shouldn't you be assigning properties to your object rather than
creating them as local variables (as with "secret")? I don't fully
understand what you're trying to do - are you trying to create an
*object* that inherits from Prototype, or a new *type* that inherits
from Prototype?

Can you explain what you're trying to do? Maybe there's an analogous
pattern in a different language that you're trying to emulate? Whatever
it is, there is probably a simpler way.

Jeremy
Jul 19 '06 #3
Jeff Stewart wrote:
I've been working with the JavaScript Shell in Firefox on
a mad-scientist problem I've had in my head. Assume a
function named 'object' that is designed to create an
object based on a prototype object -- the semantic is that
the returned object prototypally inherits from the argument
'o'.

function object(initializer, o) {
if (!o) o = Object;
function f() {}
f.prototype = o;
obj = new f();
The variable - obj - has not been declared in this code and so will act
as a global variable. This is the root of your problem as when this
function is called recursively in your example the inner recursion
re-sets the global - obj - variable to the object it is creating during
the - apply - call, and so when that returns and the outer call then
returns - obj - it is the object created during the inner recursion that
is returned and assigned to the - Thing - variable.
obj.__progenitor = o;

if (initializer) {
if ((typeof(initializer)).toLowerCase() != "function") throw
The - typeof - operator is clearly specified as returning the string
'function' when its operand is a javascript function. There is no need
to convert that string to lowercase for the comparison, and it is
probably dangerous to try to call apply on anything but a javascript
function so if - typeof - returned a mixed or uppercase version of
'function' then it would be a bad idea to then go on and call an apply
method on the object in question.
"Expected initializer to be of type function, got type " +
typeof(initializer);
initializer.apply(obj);
}

return obj;
}

Now assume these uses of the object() function:

SimplePattern = object();

Prototype = object(
It cannot be a good idea to use the Identifier - Prototype - as if the
environment has/exposes an internal constructor for creating prototypes
that will likely be its name.

With the - obj - declared as a local variable, an actual object (- new
Object -) being passes into the function in place of - Object -, and
the - Prototype - Identifier changed to - PrototypeX -, the code
produces the results you seem to expect from it.

<snip>
Why doesn't this work more intuitively?
It is ridiculously convoluted, why do you expect it to be intuitive?

Richard.
Jul 19 '06 #4

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
by: Thomas Brunko | last post by:
Hy, I'm working on a hash table and came upon a small problem. For a better explanation I've included an extract of the header file for the hash module: typedef struct TABLE * TABLE_P; typedef...
1
by: David Resnick | last post by:
I had a problem going from gcc 2.96 to gcc 3.2.3 and narrowed it down to the following code. The question is whether the problem is undefined behavior on the code's part or a compiler bug. ...
3
by: Gene | last post by:
I'm not sure I understand this behavior (at least in the context of C#). I understand the use of "ref" and "out" keywords as they apply to method arguments, and then something this morning...
3
by: 63q2o4i02 | last post by:
Hi, I was wondering how I may get a python function to know what its name is without me having to write it manually? For example: def func1(): <do some stuff1> print 'func1' return True ...
4
by: comp.lang.tcl | last post by:
I wrote this PHP function in the hopes that it would properly use a TCL proc I wrote about 4 years ago: if (!function_exists('proper_case')) { /** * Ths function will convert a string into a...
5
by: lsolesen | last post by:
I used the following javascript to add confirm-boxes to links. The confirm-boxes are added at runtime for links with the class "delete". The script adds the function to the links. When I click...
6
by: cmdrrickhunter | last post by:
I'm getting rather inconsistent behavior with staticmethod. @staticmethod has the same problems, but I'm demonstrating it with staticmethod() because it shows things more clearly...
8
by: Jon Harrop | last post by:
I am trying to learn C# and .NET programming in general but I am finding it very hard going. To start with, I'd like to translate some trivial functions from other languages that I am familiar with...
33
by: coolguyaroundyou | last post by:
Will the following statement invoke undefined behavior : a^=b,b^=a,a^=b ; given that a and b are of int-type ?? Be cautious, I have not written a^=b^=a^=b ; which, of course, is undefined....
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.