When creating a JavaScript function with multiple arguments, I am always confronted with this choice: pass a list of arguments vs. pass an options object.
For example I am writing a function to map a nodeList to an array:
function map(nodeList, callback, thisObject, fromIndex, toIndex){
...
}
I could instead use this:
function map(options){
...
}
where options is an object:
options={
nodeList:...,
callback:...,
thisObject:...,
fromIndex:...,
toIndex:...
}
Which one is the recommended way? Are there guidelines for when to use one vs. the other?
[Update] There seems to be a consensus in favor of the options object, so I'd like to add a comment: one reason why I was tempted to use the list of arguments in my case was to have a behavior consistent with the JavaScript built in array.map method.
Like many of the others, I often prefer passing an options object to a function instead of passing a long list of parameters, but it really depends on the exact context.
I use code readability as the litmus test.
For instance, if I have this function call:
checkStringLength(inputStr, 10);
I think that code is quite readable the way it is and passing individual parameters is just fine.
On the other hand, there are functions with calls like this:
initiateTransferProtocol("http", false, 150, 90, null, true, 18);
Completely unreadable unless you do some research. On the other hand, this code reads well:
initiateTransferProtocol({
"protocol": "http",
"sync": false,
"delayBetweenRetries": 150,
"randomVarianceBetweenRetries": 90,
"retryCallback": null,
"log": true,
"maxRetries": 18
});
It is more of an art than a science, but if I had to name rules of thumb:
Use an options parameter if:
You have more than four parameters
Any of the parameters are optional
You've ever had to look up the function to figure out what parameters it takes
If someone ever tries to strangle you while screaming "ARRRRRG!"
Multiple arguments are mostly for obligatory parameters. There's nothing wrong with them.
If you have optional parameters, it gets complicated. If one of them relies on the others, so that they have a certain order (e.g. the fourth one needs the third one), you still should use multiple arguments. Nearly all native EcmaScript and DOM-methods work like this. A good example is the open method of XMLHTTPrequests, where the last 3 arguments are optional - the rule is like "no password without a user" (see also MDN docs).
Option objects come in handy in two cases:
You've got so many parameters that it gets confusing: The "naming" will help you, you don't have to worry about the order of them (especially if they may change)
You've got optional parameters. The objects are very flexible, and without any ordering you just pass the things you need and nothing else (or undefineds).
In your case, I'd recommend map(nodeList, callback, options). nodelist and callback are required, the other three arguments come in only occasionally and have reasonable defaults.
Another example is JSON.stringify. You might want to use the space parameter without passing a replacer function - then you have to call …, null, 4). An arguments object might have been better, although its not really reasonable for only 2 parameters.
Using the 'options as an object' approach is going to be best. You don't have to worry about the order of the properties and there's more flexibility in what data gets passed (optional parameters for example)
Creating an object also means the options could be easily used on multiple functions:
options={
nodeList:...,
callback:...,
thisObject:...,
fromIndex:...,
toIndex:...
}
function1(options){
alert(options.nodeList);
}
function2(options){
alert(options.fromIndex);
}
It can be good to use both. If your function has one or two required parameters and a bunch of optional ones, make the first two parameters required and the third an optional options hash.
In your example, I'd do map(nodeList, callback, options). Nodelist and callback are required, it's fairly easy to tell what's happening just by reading a call to it, and it's like existing map functions. Any other options can be passed as an optional third parameter.
I may be a little late to the party with this response, but I was searching for other developers' opinions on this very topic and came across this thread.
I very much disagree with most of the responders, and side with the 'multiple arguments' approach. My main argument being that it discourages other anti-patterns like "mutating and returning the param object", or "passing the same param object on to other functions". I've worked in codebases which have extensively abused this anti-pattern, and debugging code which does this quickly becomes impossible. I think this is a very Javascript-specific rule of thumb, since Javascript is not strongly typed and allows for such arbitrarily structured objects.
My personal opinion is that developers should be explicit when calling functions, avoid passing around redundant data and avoid modify-by-reference. It's not that this patterns precludes writing concise, correct code. I just feel it makes it much easier for your project to fall into bad development practices.
Consider the following terrible code:
function main() {
const x = foo({
param1: "something",
param2: "something else",
param3: "more variables"
});
return x;
}
function foo(params) {
params.param1 = "Something new";
bar(params);
return params;
}
function bar(params) {
params.param2 = "Something else entirely";
const y = baz(params);
return params.param2;
}
function baz(params) {
params.params3 = "Changed my mind";
return params;
}
Not only does this kind of require more explicit documentation to specify intent, but it also leaves room for vague errors.
What if a developer modifies param1 in bar()? How long do you think it would take looking through a codebase of sufficident size to catch this?
Admittedly, this is example is slightly disingenuous because it assumes developers have already committed several anti-patterns by this point. But it shows how passing objects containing parameters allows greater room for error and ambiguity, requiring a greater degree of conscientiousness and observance of const correctness.
Just my two-cents on the issue!
Your comment on the question:
in my example the last three are optional.
So why not do this? (Note: This is fairly raw Javascript. Normally I'd use a default hash and update it with the options passed in by using Object.extend or JQuery.extend or similar..)
function map(nodeList, callback, options) {
options = options || {};
var thisObject = options.thisObject || {};
var fromIndex = options.fromIndex || 0;
var toIndex = options.toIndex || 0;
}
So, now since it's now much more obvious what's optional and what's not, all of these are valid uses of the function:
map(nodeList, callback);
map(nodeList, callback, {});
map(nodeList, callback, null);
map(nodeList, callback, {
thisObject: {some: 'object'},
});
map(nodeList, callback, {
toIndex: 100,
});
map(nodeList, callback, {
thisObject: {some: 'object'},
fromIndex: 0,
toIndex: 100,
});
It depends.
Based on my observation on those popular libraries design, here are the scenarios we should use option object:
The parameter list is long (>4).
Some or all parameters are optional and they don’t rely on a certain
order.
The parameter list might grow in future API update.
The API will be called from other code and the API name is not clear
enough to tell the parameters’ meaning. So it might need strong
parameter name for readability.
And scenarios to use parameter list:
Parameter list is short (<= 4).
Most of or all of the parameters are required.
Optional parameters are in a certain order. (i.e.: $.get )
Easy to tell the parameters meaning by API name.
Object is more preferable, because if you pass an object its easy to extend number of properties in that objects and you don't have to watch for order in which your arguments has been passed.
For a function that usually uses some predefined arguments you would better use option object. The opposite example will be something like a function that is getting infinite number of arguments like: setCSS({height:100},{width:200},{background:"#000"}).
I would look at large javascript projects.
Things like google map you will frequently see that instantiated objects require an object but functions require parameters. I would think this has to do with OPTION argumemnts.
If you need default arguments or optional arguments an object would probably be better because it is more flexible. But if you don't normal functional arguments are more explicit.
Javascript has an arguments object too.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/arguments
I have created a constructor function:
function Application(fullName,age,contactInfo){
this.fullName= fullName;
this.age= age;
this.contactInfo= contactInfo;
}
I am trying to define a new function newFunction and to have it "extend" the Application prototype. newFunction should return the age + 1 for the Application it was called on.
What does "extend" mean? Is it a function? Do I call the objects as an array on my newFunction?
When it comes to constructors and you hear "extend" you can think of "make". But generally we don't say "make" because it sounds like you have to create something from scratch. When you have something existing (the constructor) and you are asked to add something to it like newFunction, "extend" is a better word for it.
So likely you are asked to make a new prototype function for Application. For example after your constructor code example you posted, if you are asked to
extend the Application prototype with a function sayMyName
takes no parameters
that always produces an alert of My name is:, followed by fullName, you could do:
Application.prototype.sayMyName = function() {
alert("My name is: " + this.name);
};
Any objects instantiated using Application constructor, you can now call a .sayMyName(); method to produce the My name is... alert .
So with this as an example, hopefully you now know what to do for your situation.
This is a sort of followup to my previous question about nested registered C functions found here:
Trying to call a function in Lua with nested tables
The previous question gave me the answer to adding a nested function like this:
dog.beagle.fetch()
I also would like to have variables at that level like:
dog.beagle.name
dog.beagle.microchipID
I want this string and number to be allocated in C and accessible by Lua. So, in C code, the variables might be defined as:
int microchipIDNumber;
char dogname[500];
The C variables need to be updated by assignments in Lua and its value needs to be retrieved by Lua when it is on the right of the equal sign. I have tried the __index and __newindex metamethod concept but everything I try seems to break down when I have 2 dots in the Lua path to the variable. I know I am probably making it more complicated with the 2 dots, but it makes the organization much easier to read in the Lua code. I also need to get an event for the assignment because I need to spin up some hardware when the microchipIDNumber value changes. I assume I can do this through the __newindex while I am setting the value.
Any ideas on how you would code the metatables and methods to accomplish the nesting? Could it be because my previous function declarations are confusing Lua?
The colon operator (:) in Lua is used only for functions. Consider the following example:
meta = {}
meta["__index"] = function(n,m) print(n) print(m) return m end
object = {}
setmetatable(object,meta)
print(object.foo)
The index function will simply print the two arguments it is passed and return the second one (which we will also print, because just doing object.foo is a syntax error). The output is going to be table: 0x153e6d0 foo foo with new lines. So __index gets the object in which we're looking up the variable and it's name. Now, if we replace object.foo with object:foo we get this:
input:5: function arguments expected near ')'
This is the because : in object:foo is syntactic sugar for object.foo(object), so Lua expects that you will provide arguments for a function call. If we did provide arguments (object:foo("bar")) we get this:
table: 0x222b3b0
foo
input:5: attempt to call method 'foo' (a string value)
So our __index function still gets called, but it is not passed the argument - Lua simply attemps to call the return value. So don't use : for members.
With that out of the way, let's look at how you can sync variables between Lua and C. This is actually quite involved and there are different ways to do it. One solution would be to use a combination of __index and __newindex. If you have a beagle structure in C, I'd recommend making these C functions and pushing them into the metatable of a Lua table as C-closures with a pointer to your C struct as an upvalue. Look at this for some info on lua_pushcclosure and this on closures in Lua in general.
If you don't have a single structure you can reference, it gets a lot more complicated, since you'll have to somehow store pairs variableName-variableLocation on the C side and know what type each is. You could maintain such a list in the actual Lua table, so dog.beagle would be a map of variable name to one or two something's. There a couple of options for this 'something'. First - one light user data (ie - a C pointer), but then you'll have the issue of figuring out what that is pointing to, so that you know what Lua type to push in for __index and what to pop out for __newindex . The other option is to push two functions/closures. You can make a C function for each type you'll have to handle (number, string, table, etc) and push the appropriate one for each variable, or make a uber-closure that takes a parameter what type it's being given and then just vary the up-values you push it with. In this case the __index and __newindex functions will simply lookup the appropriate function for a given variable name and call it, so it would be probably easiest to implement it in Lua.
In the case of two functions your dog.beagle might look something like this (not actual Lua syntax):
dog.beagle = {
__metatable = {
__index = function(table,key)
local getFunc = rawget(table,key).get
return getFunc(table,key)
end
__newindex = function(table,key,value)
local setFunc = rawget(table,key).set
setFunc(table,key,value)
end
}
"color" = {
"set" = *C function for setting color or closure with an upvalue to tell it's given a color*,
"get" = *C function for getting color or closure with an upvalue to tell it to return a color*
}
}
Notes about the above: 1.Don't set an object's __metatable field directly - it's used to hide the real metatable. Use setmetatable(object,metatable). 2. Notice the usage of rawget. We need it because otherwise trying to get a field of the object from within __index would be an infinite recursion. 3. You'll have to do a bit more error checking in the event rawget(table,key) returns nil, or if what it returns does not have get/set members.
I know the basics of this methods,procedures,function and classes but i always confuse to differentiate among those in contrast of Object oriented programming so please can any body tell me the difference among those with simple examples ?
A class, in current, conventional OOP, is a collection of data (member variables) bound together with the functions/procedures that work on that data (member functions or methods). The class has no relationship to the other three terms aside from the fact that it "contains" (more properly "is associated with") the latter.
The other three terms ... well, it depends.
A function is a collection of computing statements. So is a procedure. In some very anal retentive languages, though, a function returns a value and a procedure doesn't. In such languages procedures are generally used for their side effects (like I/O) while functions are used for calculations and tend to avoid side effects. (This is the usage I tend to favour. Yes, I am that anal retentive.)
Most languages are not that anal retentive, however, and as a result people will use the terms "function" and "procedure" interchangeably, preferring one to the other based on their background. (Modula-* programmers will tend to use "procedure" while C/C++/Java/whatever will tend to use "function", for example.)
A method is just jargon for a function (or procedure) bound to a class. Indeed not all OOP languages use the term "method". In a typical (but not universal!) implementation, methods have an implied first parameter (called things like this or self or the like) for accessing the containing class. This is not, as I said, universal. Some languages make that first parameter explicit (and thus allow to be named anything you'd like) while in still others there's no magic first parameter at all.
Edited to add this example:
The following untested and uncompiled C++-like code should show you what kind of things are involved.
class MyClass
{
int memberVariable;
void setMemberVariableProcedure(int v)
{
memberVariable = v;
}
int getMemberVariableFunction()
{
return memberVariable;
}
};
void plainOldProcedure(int stuff)
{
cout << stuff;
}
int plainOldFunction(int stuff)
{
return 2 * stuff;
}
In this code getMemberVariableProcedure and getMemberVariableFunction are both methods.
Procedures, function and methods are generally alike, they hold some processing statements.
The only differences I can think between these three and the places where they are used.
I mean 'method' are generally used to define functions inside a class, where several types of user access right like public, protected, private can be defined.
"Procedures", are also function but they generally represent a series of function which needs to be carried out, upon the completion of one function or parallely with another.
Classes are collection of related attributes and methods. Attributes define the the object of the class where as the methods are the action done by or done on the class.
Hope, this was helpful
Function, method and procedure are homogeneous and each of them is a subroutine that performs some calculations.
A subroutine is:
a method when used in Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). A method can return nothing (void) or something and/or it can change data outside of the subroutine or method.
a procedure when it does not return anything but it can change data outside of the subroutine, think of a SQL stored procedure. Not considering output parameters!
a function when it returns something (its calculated result) without changing data outside of the subroutine or function. This is the way how SQL functions work.
After all, they are all a piece of re-usable code that does something, e.g. return data, calculate or manipulate data.
There is no difference between of among.
Method : no return type like void
Function : which have return type
I'm writing a wrapper around a C library in Objective-C. The library allows me to register callback functions when certain events occur.
The register_callback_handler() function takes a function pointer as one of the parameters.
My question to you gurus of programming is this: How can I represent an Objective-C method call / selector as a function pointer?
Would NSInvocation be something useful in this situation or too high level?
Would I be better off just writing a C function that has the method call written inside it, and then pass the pointer to that function?
Any help would be great, thanks.
Does register_callback_handler() also take a (void*) context argument? Most callback APIs do.
If it does, then you could use NSInvocation quite easily. Or you could allocate a little struct that contains a reference to the object and selector and then cobble up your own call.
If it only takes a function pointer, then you are potentially hosed. You need something somewhere that uniquely identifies the context, even for pure C coding.
Given that your callback handler does have a context pointer, you are all set:
typedef struct {
id target;
SEL selector;
// you could put more stuff here if you wanted
id someContextualSensitiveThing;
} TrampolineData;
void trampoline(void *freedata) {
TrampolineData *trampData = freedata;
[trampData->target performSelector: trampData->selector withObject: trampData-> someContextualSensitiveThing];
}
...
TrampolineData *td = malloc(sizeof(TrampolineData));
... fill in the struct here ...
register_callback_handler(..., trampoline, td);
That is the general idea, anyway. If you need to deal with non-object typed arguments and/or callbacks, it gets a little bit trickier, but not that much. The easiest way is to call objc_msgSend() directly after typecasting it to a function pointer of the right type so the compiler generates the right call site (keeping in mind that you might need to use objc_msgSend_stret() for structure return types).