I think all this alternate ways to create function expressions fall into
cleverness, this even if they are valid and produce the desired result, don't
justify the usage of this idioms.
saving one bit of code by using an extra operation does not seem right.
besides () GroupingOperator is designed to evaluate expressions. why not use
this and save an extra operation for the interpreter instead of one bit on the
source code?
On May 12, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Diego Perini wrote:
> Another way to have a function invoked immediately is during variable
> declaration:
>
> var a = function() { return 3; }()
>
> if/when the result of the call is needed/used later on.
>
> Or using array notation to build an (unused) array:
>
> [ function() { return 3; }() ]
>
> --
> Diego
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Nick Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There's a section in Ben Alman's blog about Immediate Invoked Function
>> Expressions that shows the various ways you can make a function
>> expression:
>> http://benalman.com/news/2010/11/immediately-invoked-function-expression/
>>
>> // Either of the following two patterns can be used to immediately invoke
>> // a function expression, utilizing the function's execution context to
>> // create "privacy."
>>
>> (function(){ /* code */ }()); // Crockford recommends this one
>> (function(){ /* code */ })(); // But this one works just as well
>>
>> // Because the point of the parens or coercing operators is to disambiguate
>> // between function expressions and function declarations, they can be
>> // omitted when the parser already expects an expression (but please see the
>> // "important note" below).
>>
>> var i = function(){ return 10; }();
>> true && function(){ /* code */ }();
>> 0, function(){ /* code */ }();
>>
>> // If you don't care about the return value, or the possibility of making
>> // your code slightly harder to read, you can save a byte by just prefixing
>> // the function with a unary operator.
>>
>> !function(){ /* code */ }();
>> ~function(){ /* code */ }();
>> -function(){ /* code */ }();
>> +function(){ /* code */ }();
>>
>> On 11 May 2011 23:00, tibolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was just reading the source code of a script, and i found a strange
>>> implementation:
>>>
>>> !function (){
>>> //
>>> }()
>>>
>>> After some test, it seems to do the same thing than:
>>>
>>> (function (){
>>> //
>>> })();
>>>
>>> is there another difference between this two way of doing the same
>>> thing, if we set aside the saving of 1 char :D ?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>>>
>>> To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nick Morgan
>> http://skilldrick.co.uk
>> @skilldrick
>>
>> --
>> To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>>
>> To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected]
>>
>
> --
> To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>
> To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
