Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters

Expand Messages
  • pauanyu
    Don t forget that it s possible to access the non-named parameters using the arguments object. I suppose if the function does not access the arguments
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using the "arguments" object.

      I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.

      In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it expects, it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in the plugin.

      --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Charles Meyrignac <jcmeyrignac@...> wrote:
      >
      > I just discovered a bug in a Firefox plugin, and the bug was that a routine
      > using 3 parameters was called with 4 parameters.
      >
      > So I did a little test with jslint:
      > function test(a,b,c)
      > {
      > return a+b+c;
      > }
      >
      > test(1,2,3,4);
      >
      > Shouldn't JsLint send a warning on this ?
      >
      > JC
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Jean-Charles Meyrignac
      ... And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server = {login, password} So password was used instead of callback . It seems that a
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using
        > the "arguments" object.
        >
        > Thanks, I forgot that.


        > I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then
        > throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.
        >
        > A warning is enough, and would help locating weird calls.


        > In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it expects,
        > it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in the
        > plugin.
        >
        > The routine was called with arguments (url, login, password, callback).
        And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server =
        {login, password}
        So 'password' was used instead of 'callback'.
        It seems that a refactoring gone wrong..

        JC


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rob Richardson
        This is totally valid (albeit confusing): var f = function () { // FRAGILE: Error check arguments.length and resulting vars for presence of value before using
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          This is totally valid (albeit confusing):

          var f = function () {
          // FRAGILE: Error check arguments.length and resulting vars for presence of
          value before using
          var a = arguments[0];
          var b = arguments[1];
          ...
          }

          A function like this could correctly be called in all these cases:

          f(1,2,3,4,5);

          f(1,2,3);

          f({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3});

          f();

          The jQuery UI suite uses this technique a lot -- optionally pass in a settings
          initialization object on first run, pass in a setting name and get back the
          current value, pass in a setting name and a new value to set it. The main
          jQuery framework also uses this technique a lot.

          I like the idea of JSLint knowing that a function was called with a different
          number of arguments than it accepts or with arguments that don't match the
          definition, but because function overloading is a standard API development
          technique, I can see it easily becoming more distracting than helpful. If it
          could also parse my docs and validate usages match my intent ... and drive my
          car and clean my kitchen and read my mind. :D It seems a carefully built set
          of unit tests that run on each commit better accounts for potential mistakes in
          this arena.

          Rob


          ________________________________
          From: Jean-Charles Meyrignac <jcmeyrignac@...>
          To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 11:57:59 PM
          Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters


          On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using
          > the "arguments" object.
          >
          > Thanks, I forgot that.

          > I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then
          > throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.
          >
          > A warning is enough, and would help locating weird calls.

          > In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it expects,
          > it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in the
          > plugin.
          >
          > The routine was called with arguments (url, login, password, callback).
          And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server =
          {login, password}
          So 'password' was used instead of 'callback'.
          It seems that a refactoring gone wrong..

          JC
        • pauanyu
          Just one question... how is that function any different from this one? var f = function (a, b) { // ... };
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 12, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Just one question... how is that function any different from this one?

            var f = function (a, b) {
            // ...
            };

            --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Rob Richardson <erobrich@...> wrote:
            >
            > This is totally valid (albeit confusing):
            >
            > var f = function () {
            > // FRAGILE: Error check arguments.length and resulting vars for presence of
            > value before using
            > var a = arguments[0];
            > var b = arguments[1];
            > ...
            > }
            >
            > A function like this could correctly be called in all these cases:
            >
            > f(1,2,3,4,5);
            >
            > f(1,2,3);
            >
            > f({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3});
            >
            > f();
            >
            > The jQuery UI suite uses this technique a lot -- optionally pass in a settings
            > initialization object on first run, pass in a setting name and get back the
            > current value, pass in a setting name and a new value to set it. The main
            > jQuery framework also uses this technique a lot.
            >
            > I like the idea of JSLint knowing that a function was called with a different
            > number of arguments than it accepts or with arguments that don't match the
            > definition, but because function overloading is a standard API development
            > technique, I can see it easily becoming more distracting than helpful. If it
            > could also parse my docs and validate usages match my intent ... and drive my
            > car and clean my kitchen and read my mind. :D It seems a carefully built set
            > of unit tests that run on each commit better accounts for potential mistakes in
            > this arena.
            >
            > Rob
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: Jean-Charles Meyrignac <jcmeyrignac@...>
            > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 11:57:59 PM
            > Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters
            >
            >
            > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using
            > > the "arguments" object.
            > >
            > > Thanks, I forgot that.
            >
            > > I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then
            > > throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.
            > >
            > > A warning is enough, and would help locating weird calls.
            >
            > > In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it expects,
            > > it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in the
            > > plugin.
            > >
            > > The routine was called with arguments (url, login, password, callback).
            > And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server =
            > {login, password}
            > So 'password' was used instead of 'callback'.
            > It seems that a refactoring gone wrong..
            >
            > JC
            >
          • Rob Richardson
            Imagine a function whose body looked like so: var f = function () { var option = {}; // Options stored in a stateful mechanism if ( arguments.length === 2 &&
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 13, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Imagine a function whose body looked like so:

              var f = function () {
              var option = {}; // Options stored in a stateful mechanism

              if ( arguments.length === 2 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'string' ) {
              // Called as f("setting",value);
              option[arguments[0]] = arguments[1];
              return;
              }

              if ( arguments.length === 1 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'string' ) {
              // Called as f("setting");
              return option[arguments[0]];
              }

              if ( arguments.length === 0 ) {
              // Called as f();
              option.init();
              return;
              }

              // Other implementations here

              throw {
              message: "You called this function incorrectly",
              arguments: arguments
              };
              }

              Rob

              ________________________________
              From: pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...>
              To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 8:36:50 PM
              Subject: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters


              Just one question... how is that function any different from this one?

              var f = function (a, b) {
              // ...
              };

              --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Rob Richardson <erobrich@...> wrote:
              >
              > This is totally valid (albeit confusing):
              >
              > var f = function () {
              > // FRAGILE: Error check arguments.length and resulting vars for presence of


              > value before using
              > var a = arguments[0];
              > var b = arguments[1];
              > ...
              > }
              >
              > A function like this could correctly be called in all these cases:
              >
              > f(1,2,3,4,5);
              >
              > f(1,2,3);
              >
              > f({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3});
              >
              > f();
              >
              > The jQuery UI suite uses this technique a lot -- optionally pass in a settings


              > initialization object on first run, pass in a setting name and get back the
              > current value, pass in a setting name and a new value to set it. The main
              > jQuery framework also uses this technique a lot.
              >
              > I like the idea of JSLint knowing that a function was called with a different
              > number of arguments than it accepts or with arguments that don't match the
              > definition, but because function overloading is a standard API development
              > technique, I can see it easily becoming more distracting than helpful. If it
              > could also parse my docs and validate usages match my intent ... and drive my
              > car and clean my kitchen and read my mind. :D It seems a carefully built set

              > of unit tests that run on each commit better accounts for potential mistakes in
              >
              > this arena.
              >
              > Rob
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: Jean-Charles Meyrignac <jcmeyrignac@...>
              > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 11:57:59 PM
              > Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters
              >
              >
              > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using
              > > the "arguments" object.
              > >
              > > Thanks, I forgot that.
              >
              > > I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then
              > > throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.
              > >
              > > A warning is enough, and would help locating weird calls.
              >
              > > In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it expects,
              > > it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in the
              > > plugin.
              > >
              > > The routine was called with arguments (url, login, password, callback).
              > And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server =
              > {login, password}
              > So 'password' was used instead of 'callback'.
              > It seems that a refactoring gone wrong..
              >
              > JC
            • pauanyu
              Yeah, I get the idea. But couldn t that function be written like this, with the same effect? var f = function (key, value) { var option = {}; // Options stored
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 14, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Yeah, I get the idea. But couldn't that function be written like this, with the same effect?


                var f = function (key, value) {
                var option = {}; // Options stored in a stateful mechanism

                if (arguments.length === 2 && typeof key === 'string') {
                // Called as f("setting", value);
                option[key] = value;
                return;
                }

                if (arguments.length === 1 && typeof key === 'string') {
                // Called as f("setting");
                return option[key];
                }

                if (arguments.length === 0) {
                // Called as f();
                option.init();
                return;
                }

                // Other implementations here

                throw {
                message: "You called this function incorrectly",
                arguments: arguments
                };
                };


                --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Rob Richardson <erobrich@...> wrote:
                >
                > Imagine a function whose body looked like so:
                >
                > var f = function () {
                > var option = {}; // Options stored in a stateful mechanism
                >
                > if ( arguments.length === 2 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'string' ) {
                > // Called as f("setting",value);
                > option[arguments[0]] = arguments[1];
                > return;
                > }
                >
                > if ( arguments.length === 1 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'string' ) {
                > // Called as f("setting");
                > return option[arguments[0]];
                > }
                >
                > if ( arguments.length === 0 ) {
                > // Called as f();
                > option.init();
                > return;
                > }
                >
                > // Other implementations here
                >
                > throw {
                > message: "You called this function incorrectly",
                > arguments: arguments
                > };
                > }
                >
                > Rob
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...>
                > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 8:36:50 PM
                > Subject: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters
                >
                >
                > Just one question... how is that function any different from this one?
                >
                > var f = function (a, b) {
                > // ...
                > };
                >
                > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Rob Richardson <erobrich@> wrote:
                > >
                > > This is totally valid (albeit confusing):
                > >
                > > var f = function () {
                > > // FRAGILE: Error check arguments.length and resulting vars for presence of
                >
                >
                > > value before using
                > > var a = arguments[0];
                > > var b = arguments[1];
                > > ...
                > > }
                > >
                > > A function like this could correctly be called in all these cases:
                > >
                > > f(1,2,3,4,5);
                > >
                > > f(1,2,3);
                > >
                > > f({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3});
                > >
                > > f();
                > >
                > > The jQuery UI suite uses this technique a lot -- optionally pass in a settings
                >
                >
                > > initialization object on first run, pass in a setting name and get back the
                > > current value, pass in a setting name and a new value to set it. The main
                > > jQuery framework also uses this technique a lot.
                > >
                > > I like the idea of JSLint knowing that a function was called with a different
                > > number of arguments than it accepts or with arguments that don't match the
                > > definition, but because function overloading is a standard API development
                > > technique, I can see it easily becoming more distracting than helpful. If it
                > > could also parse my docs and validate usages match my intent ... and drive my
                > > car and clean my kitchen and read my mind. :D It seems a carefully built set
                >
                > > of unit tests that run on each commit better accounts for potential mistakes in
                > >
                > > this arena.
                > >
                > > Rob
                > >
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > From: Jean-Charles Meyrignac <jcmeyrignac@>
                > > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 11:57:59 PM
                > > Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters
                > >
                > >
                > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, pauanyu <pcxunlimited@> wrote:
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using
                > > > the "arguments" object.
                > > >
                > > > Thanks, I forgot that.
                > >
                > > > I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then
                > > > throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.
                > > >
                > > > A warning is enough, and would help locating weird calls.
                > >
                > > > In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it expects,
                > > > it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in the
                > > > plugin.
                > > >
                > > > The routine was called with arguments (url, login, password, callback).
                > > And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server =
                > > {login, password}
                > > So 'password' was used instead of 'callback'.
                > > It seems that a refactoring gone wrong..
                > >
                > > JC
                >
              • Rob Richardson
                Yes, until one of the implementations looked like this: if (arguments.length === 1 && typeof(arguments[0]) === object ) { var arg = arguments[0]; // TODO:
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 16, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, until one of the implementations looked like this:

                  if (arguments.length === 1 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'object') {
                  var arg = arguments[0]; // TODO: move var definition to the top
                  if (arg.length && arg.length > 0) {
                  // ASSUME: Array
                  for ( var i = 0; i < arg.length; i++ ) {
                  option.arrayelem[i] = arg[i];
                  }
                  } else {
                  // ASSUME: Object
                  for ( var prop in arg ) {
                  if ( arg.hasOwnProperty(prop) ) {
                  option[prop] = arg[prop];
                  }
                  }
                  }
                  return;
                  }

                  ... yeah, I'll grant you could swap this to be:

                  ...
                  var arg = key;
                  ...

                  But in this case you couldn't:

                  if (arguments.length > 2) {
                  // ASSUME: they passed in the array as items instead of as an array
                  var arg = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments); // TODO: move var
                  definition to the top
                  for ( var i = 0; i < arg.length; i++ ) {
                  option.arrayelem[i] = arg[i];
                  }
                  }

                  The dilemma is that because the contract for this function is so diverse in
                  number and type of arguments passed, sometimes it's just easier to define the
                  function with no input parameters and use the arguments (fake) array to parse
                  out what you're trying to do instead. Because the arguments array is always
                  available, I can't just look at the function definition and the caller and
                  positively identify you called me in a way I didn't expect. And because
                  different implementations may use more or less arguments in the function, I
                  can't from a static analysis point of view know that you called me with too many
                  or too few arguments or the incorrect data type(s) to match the implementation
                  you were looking for. ... or rather if you figure out a good way to do it, I'll
                  sign up. Thus far, I've only been able to prove this by unit test.

                  Rob

                  ________________________________
                  From: pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...>
                  To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 4:15:39 AM
                  Subject: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters


                  Yeah, I get the idea. But couldn't that function be written like this, with the
                  same effect?

                  var f = function (key, value) {
                  var option = {}; // Options stored in a stateful mechanism

                  if (arguments.length === 2 && typeof key === 'string') {
                  // Called as f("setting", value);
                  option[key] = value;
                  return;
                  }

                  if (arguments.length === 1 && typeof key === 'string') {
                  // Called as f("setting");
                  return option[key];
                  }

                  if (arguments.length === 0) {
                  // Called as f();
                  option.init();
                  return;
                  }

                  // Other implementations here

                  throw {
                  message: "You called this function incorrectly",
                  arguments: arguments
                  };
                  };

                  --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Rob Richardson <erobrich@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Imagine a function whose body looked like so:
                  >
                  > var f = function () {
                  > var option = {}; // Options stored in a stateful mechanism
                  >
                  > if ( arguments.length === 2 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'string' ) {
                  > // Called as f("setting",value);
                  > option[arguments[0]] = arguments[1];
                  > return;
                  > }
                  >
                  > if ( arguments.length === 1 && typeof(arguments[0]) === 'string' ) {
                  > // Called as f("setting");
                  > return option[arguments[0]];
                  > }
                  >
                  > if ( arguments.length === 0 ) {
                  > // Called as f();
                  > option.init();
                  > return;
                  > }
                  >
                  > // Other implementations here
                  >
                  > throw {
                  > message: "You called this function incorrectly",
                  > arguments: arguments
                  > };
                  > }
                  >
                  > Rob
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: pauanyu <pcxunlimited@...>
                  > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 8:36:50 PM
                  > Subject: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters
                  >
                  >
                  > Just one question... how is that function any different from this one?
                  >
                  > var f = function (a, b) {
                  > // ...
                  > };
                  >
                  > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Rob Richardson <erobrich@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > This is totally valid (albeit confusing):
                  > >
                  > > var f = function () {
                  > > // FRAGILE: Error check arguments.length and resulting vars for presence
                  >of
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > value before using
                  > > var a = arguments[0];
                  > > var b = arguments[1];
                  > > ...
                  > > }
                  > >
                  > > A function like this could correctly be called in all these cases:
                  > >
                  > > f(1,2,3,4,5);
                  > >
                  > > f(1,2,3);
                  > >
                  > > f({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3});
                  > >
                  > > f();
                  > >
                  > > The jQuery UI suite uses this technique a lot -- optionally pass in a
                  >settings
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > initialization object on first run, pass in a setting name and get back the
                  > > current value, pass in a setting name and a new value to set it. The main
                  > > jQuery framework also uses this technique a lot.
                  > >
                  > > I like the idea of JSLint knowing that a function was called with a different
                  >
                  >
                  > > number of arguments than it accepts or with arguments that don't match the
                  > > definition, but because function overloading is a standard API development
                  > > technique, I can see it easily becoming more distracting than helpful. If it
                  >
                  >
                  > > could also parse my docs and validate usages match my intent ... and drive my
                  >
                  >
                  > > car and clean my kitchen and read my mind. :D It seems a carefully built
                  >set
                  >
                  >
                  > > of unit tests that run on each commit better accounts for potential mistakes

                  >in
                  >
                  > >
                  > > this arena.
                  > >
                  > > Rob
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: Jean-Charles Meyrignac <jcmeyrignac@>
                  > > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 11:57:59 PM
                  > > Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Calling With Too Much Parameters
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, pauanyu <pcxunlimited@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Don't forget that it's possible to access the non-named parameters using
                  > > > the "arguments" object.
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks, I forgot that.
                  > >
                  > > > I suppose if the function does not access the arguments object, then
                  > > > throwing a warning or error in that case might be nice.
                  > > >
                  > > > A warning is enough, and would help locating weird calls.
                  > >
                  > > > In any case, if the function is called with more arguments than it
                  expects,
                  > > > it simply ignores the excess. I'm not sure why that would cause a bug in
                  >the
                  > > > plugin.
                  > > >
                  > > > The routine was called with arguments (url, login, password, callback).
                  > > And the routine was declared with (url, server, callback), with server =
                  > > {login, password}
                  > > So 'password' was used instead of 'callback'.
                  > > It seems that a refactoring gone wrong..
                  > >
                  > > JC
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.