well. you have to understand why this is done in this way. the immediate
function is used here to create scope, so every closure created has access
to the right value. w/o this construct every of all a.lenght clojures will
acces the same value: a[a.length-1].
i do not agree that defining a function somewhere else decrease
readability, its the opposite. if i declare well named, pure function i
increase readability, plus, reusability, reduce my memory footprint and
garbage collection effort.
Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2012 08:00:42 UTC+2 schrieb Maxim Kazantsev:
>
> It is a pretty typical approach to use an anonymous function for
> asynchronous calls from inside a loop:
>
> var a = getInitialData();
>> for (var i = 0, len = a.length; i < len; i++) {
>> (function(el) {
>> /* do something non-blocking here */
>> })(a[i]);
>> }
>
>
> JSLint doesn't like this code with "Don't make functions within a loop"
> warning, and it is actually right since it really creates a new anonymous
> function on every single loop iteration. An obvious solution is to declare
> this function outside a loop, but it would make a code less readable. Even
> if a declaration would just precede the loop: you see a call here, you see
> a declaration somewhere else, and here you are, lost all your attention.
>
> My question is how bad this approach is for an overall performance? In
> particular, how fast and efficient a garbage collection of anonymous
> functions is? How much memory a typical anonymous function can consume and
> how long it may exist in a memory?
>
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
