Timeline for Loop without 'looping'
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2014 at 17:03 | comment | added | eithed |
@Bob that's why I've written new Function + ;)
|
|
| Jul 21, 2014 at 15:56 | comment | added | Bob |
@eithedog Similar. .call() calls the function with the new this; .bind() creates a new function with a different this value, which can then be called later - it's a completely independent function. The difference is .bind() actually creates a new function, which addresses immibis' complaint.
|
|
| Jul 21, 2014 at 15:49 | comment | added | eithed |
@Bob - good point, though unfortunately it would be the same trick (I guess .bind works the same way as new Function + .call(this)?)
|
|
| Jul 21, 2014 at 12:33 | comment | added | Bob |
@immibis Trivial to get around it: tab.f = f.bind({}) (clones the actual function instead of the function reference, so you get an actual new function). You can go the longer way of serialising to JSON and deserialising back to a function, if you want.
|
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 18:38 | history | edited | eithed | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 18:37 | comment | added | eithed | @immibis - fair point, your comment got me thinking; as functions (and variables) are scoped to the window they're operating in, so the given functions should indeed be different, however the truth doesn't look too good: jsfiddle.net/SV6aa. Oh well, you learn something everyday. Everything here is a loophole - that's the point :D | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 15:17 | comment | added | jozxyqk | I love that browsers, after all this time, are still so vulnerable to stuff like this | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 7:45 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed |
@eithedog the second one is just recursion, AFAIK (unless tab.f = f creates a new function, which would be unexpected, but unsurprising given it's JavaScript). The first one is just trying to use a loophole - it's effectively copyFunction(f)() instead of f()
|
|
| Jul 17, 2014 at 10:11 | comment | added | eithed | @immibis - if I'm not mistaken, in both of the examples new functions are created dynamically - so what that they have the same body as the function that spawned them? | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 9:59 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | -1 - this is just recursion. | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 8:05 | comment | added | Chirag Bhatia - chirag64 | Unfortunately, I noticed it because I tried it. :P | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 8:03 | comment | added | eithed | @Chirag64 - it should be similar to previous example, but let's say I didn't want anybody to try it ;) | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 7:36 | comment | added | Chirag Bhatia - chirag64 |
I think you're missing an f at the end of your second function. It should be }f() in the end.
|
|
| Jul 11, 2014 at 11:44 | comment | added | seequ | @CailinP Pretty eval for sure. | |
| Jul 9, 2014 at 18:52 | comment | added | CailinP | This is pretty evil for sure ;) | |
| Jul 9, 2014 at 17:03 | history | edited | eithed | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 360 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2014 at 16:52 | history | answered | eithed | CC BY-SA 3.0 |