I'm used to PHP PSR-4 style and I setup my VS Code to auto indent function like that:
Incorrect:
public function foo() {
// here goes something
}
Correct:
public function foo ()
{
// here goes something
}
I would like to enfore a similar style with Eslint for JavaScript (of course), in this case, not exactly the same but like this one:
function bar () {
}
I just want that always before the brackets it enforces a space character, is there any rule to make it work?
Some rule like space-before-brackets
Related
Arrow functions in ES2015 provide a more concise syntax.
Can I replace all my function declarations / expressions with arrow functions now?
What do I have to look out for?
Examples:
Constructor function
function User(name) {
this.name = name;
}
// vs
const User = name => {
this.name = name;
};
Prototype methods
User.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
};
// vs
User.prototype.getName = () => this.name;
Object (literal) methods
const obj = {
getName: function() {
// ...
}
};
// vs
const obj = {
getName: () => {
// ...
}
};
Callbacks
setTimeout(function() {
// ...
}, 500);
// vs
setTimeout(() => {
// ...
}, 500);
Variadic functions
function sum() {
let args = [].slice.call(arguments);
// ...
}
// vs
const sum = (...args) => {
// ...
};
tl;dr: No! Arrow functions and function declarations / expressions are not equivalent and cannot be replaced blindly.
If the function you want to replace does not use this, arguments and is not called with new, then yes.
As so often: it depends. Arrow functions have different behavior than function declarations / expressions, so let's have a look at the differences first:
1. Lexical this and arguments
Arrow functions don't have their own this or arguments binding. Instead, those identifiers are resolved in the lexical scope like any other variable. That means that inside an arrow function, this and arguments refer to the values of this and arguments in the environment the arrow function is defined in (i.e. "outside" the arrow function):
// Example using a function expression
function createObject() {
console.log('Inside `createObject`:', this.foo);
return {
foo: 42,
bar: function() {
console.log('Inside `bar`:', this.foo);
},
};
}
createObject.call({foo: 21}).bar(); // override `this` inside createObject
// Example using a arrow function
function createObject() {
console.log('Inside `createObject`:', this.foo);
return {
foo: 42,
bar: () => console.log('Inside `bar`:', this.foo),
};
}
createObject.call({foo: 21}).bar(); // override `this` inside createObject
In the function expression case, this refers to the object that was created inside the createObject. In the arrow function case, this refers to this of createObject itself.
This makes arrow functions useful if you need to access the this of the current environment:
// currently common pattern
var that = this;
getData(function(data) {
that.data = data;
});
// better alternative with arrow functions
getData(data => {
this.data = data;
});
Note that this also means that is not possible to set an arrow function's this with .bind or .call.
If you are not very familiar with this, consider reading
MDN - this
YDKJS - this & Object prototypes
2. Arrow functions cannot be called with new
ES2015 distinguishes between functions that are callable and functions that are constructable. If a function is constructable, it can be called with new, i.e. new User(). If a function is callable, it can be called without new (i.e. normal function call).
Functions created through function declarations / expressions are both constructable and callable.
Arrow functions (and methods) are only callable.
class constructors are only constructable.
If you are trying to call a non-callable function or to construct a non-constructable function, you will get a runtime error.
Knowing this, we can state the following.
Replaceable:
Functions that don't use this or arguments.
Functions that are used with .bind(this)
Not replaceable:
Constructor functions
Function / methods added to a prototype (because they usually use this)
Variadic functions (if they use arguments (see below))
Generator functions, which require the function* notation
Lets have a closer look at this using your examples:
Constructor function
This won't work because arrow functions cannot be called with new. Keep using a function declaration / expression or use class.
Prototype methods
Most likely not, because prototype methods usually use this to access the instance. If they don't use this, then you can replace it. However, if you primarily care for concise syntax, use class with its concise method syntax:
class User {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name;
}
getName() {
return this.name;
}
}
Object methods
Similarly for methods in an object literal. If the method wants to reference the object itself via this, keep using function expressions, or use the new method syntax:
const obj = {
getName() {
// ...
},
};
Callbacks
It depends. You should definitely replace it if you are aliasing the outer this or are using .bind(this):
// old
setTimeout(function() {
// ...
}.bind(this), 500);
// new
setTimeout(() => {
// ...
}, 500);
But: If the code which calls the callback explicitly sets this to a specific value, as is often the case with event handlers, especially with jQuery, and the callback uses this (or arguments), you cannot use an arrow function!
Variadic functions
Since arrow functions don't have their own arguments, you cannot simply replace them with an arrow function. However, ES2015 introduces an alternative to using arguments: the rest parameter.
// old
function sum() {
let args = [].slice.call(arguments);
// ...
}
// new
const sum = (...args) => {
// ...
};
Related question:
When should I use arrow functions in ECMAScript 6?
Do ES6 arrow functions have their own arguments or not?
What are the differences (if any) between ES6 arrow functions and functions bound with Function.prototype.bind?
How to use arrow functions (public class fields) as class methods?
Further resources:
MDN - Arrow functions
YDKJS - Arrow functions
Arrow functions => best ES6 feature so far. They are a tremendously
powerful addition to ES6, that I use constantly.
Wait, you can't use arrow function everywhere in your code, its not going to work in all cases like this where arrow functions are not usable. Without a doubt, the arrow function is a great addition it brings code simplicity.
But you can’t use an arrow function when a dynamic context is required: defining methods, create objects with constructors, get the target from this when handling events.
Arrow functions should NOT be used because:
They do not have this
It uses “lexical scoping” to figure out what the value of “this”
should be. In simple word lexical scoping it uses “this” from the
inside the function’s body.
They do not have arguments
Arrow functions don’t have an arguments object. But the same
functionality can be achieved using rest parameters.
let sum = (...args) => args.reduce((x, y) => x + y, 0);
sum(3, 3, 1) // output: 7
They cannot be used with new
Arrow functions can't be constructors because they do not have a prototype property.
When to use arrow function and when not:
Don't use to add function as a property in object literal because we
can not access this.
Function expressions are best for object methods. Arrow functions
are best for callbacks or methods like map, reduce, or forEach.
Use function declarations for functions you’d call by name (because
they’re hoisted).
Use arrow functions for callbacks (because they tend to be terser).
To use arrow functions with function.prototype.call, I made a helper function on the object prototype:
// Using
// #func = function() {use this here} or This => {use This here}
using(func) {
return func.call(this, this);
}
usage
var obj = {f:3, a:2}
.using(This => This.f + This.a) // 5
Edit
You don't NEED a helper. You could do:
var obj = {f:3, a:2}
(This => This.f + This.a).call(undefined, obj); // 5
They are not always equivalent. Here's a case where you cannot simply use arrow functions instead of regular functions.
Arrow functions CANNOT be used as constructors
TLDR:
This is because of how Arrow Functions use the this keyword. JS will simply throw an error if it sees an arrow function being invoked as a "constructor". Use regular functions to fix the error.
Longer explanation:
This is because objects "constructors" rely on the this keyword to be able to be modified.
Generally, the this keyword always references the global object. (In the browser it is the window object).
BUT, when you do something like:
function personCreator(name) {
this.name = name;
}
const person1 = new personCreator('John');
The new keyword do some of its magic and makes the this keyword that is inside of personCreator to be initially an empty object instead of referencing the global object. After that, a new property called name is created inside that empty this object, and its value will be 'John'. At the end, the this object is returned.
As we see, the new keyword changed the value of this from referencing the global object to now be an empty object {}.
Arrow functions do not allow their this object to be modified. Their this object is always the one from the scope where they were statically created. This is called Static Lexical Scope. That is why you cannot do operations like bind, apply, or call with arrow functions. Simply, their this is locked to the value of the this of the scope were they were created. This is by design.
And because of this :D, arrow functions cannot be used as "constructors".
Side Note:
A lexical scope is just the area where a function is created. For example:
function personCreator(name) {
this.name = name;
const foo = () => {
const bar = () => {
console.log(this); // Output: { name: 'John' }
}
console.log(this); // Output: { name: 'John' }
bar();
}
foo();
}
const person1 = new personCreator('John');
The lexical scope of bar is everything that is within foo. So, the this value of bar is the one that foo has, which is the one of personCreator.
How to keep empty line in dart code inside curly braсets? By default, Android studio automaticaly removes them. How to change that?
Don't fight the formatter. It will win.
The way to avoid a { and } being collapsed is to have something between them.
I'd recommend something like:
Future<void> displayRangePicker(BuildContext context) async {
// Intentionally left empty.
}
or even just:
Future<void> displayRangePicker(BuildContext context) async {
return;
}
(which is equivalent to what you wrote, just being explicit about the return).
I'm trying to write my own boolean "abstract" with some additional functions.
#forward
abstract MyBool(Bool) {
public inline function new(b:Bool) {
this = b;
}
#:from
public static inline function fromBool(b:Bool):MyBool {
return new MyBool(b);
}
#:to
public inline function toBool():Bool {
return this;
}
// some additional functions
}
In principal this works fine:
var t:T = true;
if(t) {
trace("1");
}
t.someStrangeMethod();
However #:forward does not forward basic boolean-operators like "!":
var f:T = false;
if(!f) { // fails here, because "!" is not defined as an operator for MyBool ...
trace("2");
}
The error message is "MyBool should be Bool", which I find quite strange because MyBool is an abstract of a Bool with #:forward annotation and there is a #:to-method.
Of course there are some easy workarounds. One could either use:
if(!f.toBool()) {
trace("2");
}
and/or add a function annotated with #:op(!A) to the abstract:
#:op(!A)
public inline function notOp():Bool {
return !this;
}
However I do not like both methods:
I dislike adding #:op(...) to MyBool, because creating a method for each possible operator would require much code (Maybe not with a boolean, but e.g. with an Int, Float, ...).
I dislike using !var.toBool(). If someone has already written quite some code (s)he does not want to go through all of it, when (s)he simply wants to change Bool to a MyBool ... I mean of course (s)he could also cast Bool to MyBool whenever adding new code, but that can be horrible too.
So I was wondering if anyone has a better idea? Is there maybe another "#:forward"-like compiling metadata, I do not know about yet?
There's an open feature request regarding this:
Can #:forward also forward underlying operator overloads? (#5035)
One way to make your code example work is to allow implicit conversions with to Bool. I'm not entirely sure why the equivalent #:to function doesn't work here, as the Haxe Manual states that "Class field casts have the same semantics".
abstract MyBool(Bool) to Bool {
Apart from that, I think the only options is to declare an #:op function for each operator you want to support. If declared without a body, the underlying type's operator will be forwarded:
#:op(!A) function notOp():MyBool;
If your main goal is to just add methods to the Bool type, then perhaps avoid the problem altogether by instead creating a class that adds methods to Bool via static extension (documented in the Haxe manual). This method would eliminate the need for operator forwarding.
What does this syntax mean in Groovy?
class CreateMessagePage extends Page {
static at = { assert title == 'Messages : Create'; true }
static url = 'messages/form'
static content = {
submit { $('input[type=submit]') }
MyVeryStrangeForm { $('form') }
errors(required:false) { $('label.error, .alert-error')?.text() }
}
}
(taken from Spring MVC Test HtmlUnit manual)
The question is about Groovy and I would like know the answer in Groovy terms.
What is content? Is it a static variable? Is its name is random or predefined by base class of Page?
What is = (equal sign) after it? Is it an assignment operator?
What is at the right hand side of =? Is this a closure? Or if this an anonymous class? Or if these are the same?
What is submit inside curly braces?
Is this a variable? Why there is no assignment operator after it then?
Is this a function definition? Can I define functions in arbitrary places in Groovy? If this is a function definition, then what is errors then?
Is submit is a function call, receiving { $('input[type=submit]') } as a parameter? If yes, then where is this function can be defined? For example, where is MyVeryStrangeForm defined (is nowhere)?
If this was function call, then it won't work since it's undefined...
Quick answer to all questions: it's a block of code, like anonymous function, called closure in Groovy.
See http://www.groovy-lang.org/closures.html
In Groovy you can reference/pass/set such closure, as in any Functional Language.
So this:
static at = { assert title == 'Messages : Create'; true }
means that class field at will be set to this closure (notice, not result of closure execution, but closure itself, as block of code). Type of at is omitted there, but it could be static def at or static Object at, or static Closure at
This code could be executed anytime later, in different context, with title defined, etc.
This:
submit { $('input[type=submit]') }
means calling a function submit with closure as argument.
If you want to write own function like this, it should be something like:
def submit(Closure code) {
code.call()
}
Brackets could be omitted, so it could be written as submit({$('input[type=submit]')}). Same for other function as well, it could be println 'hello world!' instead of println('hello world').
There's also a common practice to define closure as last argument, like:
def errors(Map opts, Closure code) {
....
}
at this case you could pass first arguments as usual, wrapped in brackets, and closure outside:
errors(required:false) { ...... }
same to:
errors([required: false], { ..... })
I'm trying to write a Greasemonkey script for a hierarchy of websites such that I have a bunch of code modifications for http://www.foo.com/*, then more specific ones for http://www.foo.com/bar/*, and still others for http://www.foo.com/foobar/*.
Is there anyway for me to write all these in the same script, or do I have to make multiple?
Is there anyway for me to write all
these in the same script, or do I have
to make multiple?
Yes, just use those three #includes, then in your user script do something like (depends on specifics of script):
var currentURL = (document.location+'');
if (currentURL .match(/http:\/\/www\.foo\.com\/foobar\/.*/)) {
// do stuff for page set A
} else if (currentURL .match(/http:\/\/www\.foo\.com\/foo\/.*/)) {
// do stuff for page set B
} else if (currentURL .match(/http:\/\/www\.foo\.com\/.*/)) {
// do stuff for page set C
}
One nifty trick I was shown for dealing with different functions at different sub-locations is to use the global directory of function names as a sort of virtual switchboard...
// do anything that is supposed to apply to the entire website above here.
var place = location.pathname.replace(/\/|\.(php|html)$/gi, "").toLowerCase();
// the regex converts from "foo/" or "foo.php" or "foo.html" to just "foo".
var handler;
if ((handler = global["at_" + place])) {
handler();
}
// end of top-level code. Following is all function definitions:
function at_foo() {
// do foo-based stuff here
}
function at_foobar() {
// do foobar stuff here.
}