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

Re: RE: [jslint] Collision between global var and function name

Expand Messages
  • Cheney, Edward A SSG RES USAR
    Rob, What is the problem if a function changes its method of definition? I do understand that there is a difference between the method of declaring a function
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Rob,

      What is the problem if a function changes its method of definition? I do understand that there is a difference between the method of declaring a function with regard to execution versus where the function is defined during procedural interpretation of the code at the interpreter, but what problems can you describe where a function morphs during a given scope? JSLint already complains if a single variable name is defined more than once in a given scope. Are you suggestion it would be helpful for JSLint to always prefer one single format for declaring a function? JSLint does not perform flow control and so it cannot know if there exists some sort of poly morphism in your code, by where a function dynamically changes form.

      What is the problem if a function returns null? I understand that a bug is thrown in a function returns null and is executed as part of a mathematical operation or string concatenation. You can prevent this easily enough by ensuring your functions always return a value or an empty string. JSLint does not perform flow control and so no matter how grave a problem this may be it is best fixed proactively and not from validation.

      There is no problem with a variable matching the name of its containing function, because of a difference in namespaces. The problem that arises is if the variable in question is not declared within the function, such as a closure, because then there exists the possibility of a namespace collision. JSLint warns about declarations that cause collisions, but you are on your own for collisions that are the result of reassignment.

      " I realize there's no classical "types", but it seems to me that a function which within itself sets itself to null is doing bad things."
      Not necessarily. A function does not return a value unless it is told to do so. That is not a bad thing, because not all functions are written to return values. Some functions may act to alter the value of closures and other may act to perform operations or extend prototypes. In these cases the functions are merely containers of code that are available for reuse, but do not return values.

      I promise that I am not trying to be a stickler or a pain. I am just trying to pry some specifics out of you because mentioned several things quickly of which each are open to interpretation.

      "The corollary to this is name variables more descriptively such that a typo won't make it from one valid var to another."
      As I discovered early this spring even well named variables can result in unintended collisions between nested operations provided enough reuse and inadequate scope definitions upon where those names are reused. This is part of the nature of extended complexity that comes with Lambda programming.

      Thanks,
      Austin
    • Rob Richardson
      I think I wasn t adequately clear previously. If a variable whose value is a function changes value to a non-function such as number or string or object, I
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I think I wasn't adequately clear previously. If a variable whose value is
        a function changes value to a non-function such as number or string or
        object, I see this as a concern. The return value of executing the function
        is correctly irrelevant. My question was given the JSLint codebase, is
        adding such a check practical?

        For example, I'd love if JSLint flagged that all these cases were invalid:

        Case 1:

        var somefunc1 = function () {
        somefunc1 = 1; // or null or {} or etc
        };

        Case 2:

        function somefunc2() {
        somefunc2 = 1; // or null or {} or etc
        };

        Case 3:

        someobj.somefunc3 = function () {
        delete someobj.somefunc3;
        };


        ... and aren't lambdas such wonderfully painful and exhilarating things.
        Not since pointer arithmetic could we get so cleaver in such elegant and
        dangerous ways. ("Is this an array of pointers or a pointer to an array?")
        I so love my career.

        Rob


        -----Original Message-----
        From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Cheney, Edward A SSG RES USAR
        Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:56 AM
        To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: RE: [jslint] Collision between global var and function name

        Rob,

        What is the problem if a function changes its method of definition? I do
        understand that there is a difference between the method of declaring a
        function with regard to execution versus where the function is defined
        during procedural interpretation of the code at the interpreter, but what
        problems can you describe where a function morphs during a given scope?
        JSLint already complains if a single variable name is defined more than once
        in a given scope. Are you suggestion it would be helpful for JSLint to
        always prefer one single format for declaring a function? JSLint does not
        perform flow control and so it cannot know if there exists some sort of poly
        morphism in your code, by where a function dynamically changes form.

        What is the problem if a function returns null? I understand that a bug is
        thrown in a function returns null and is executed as part of a mathematical
        operation or string concatenation. You can prevent this easily enough by
        ensuring your functions always return a value or an empty string. JSLint
        does not perform flow control and so no matter how grave a problem this may
        be it is best fixed proactively and not from validation.

        There is no problem with a variable matching the name of its containing
        function, because of a difference in namespaces. The problem that arises is
        if the variable in question is not declared within the function, such as a
        closure, because then there exists the possibility of a namespace collision.
        JSLint warns about declarations that cause collisions, but you are on your
        own for collisions that are the result of reassignment.

        " I realize there's no classical "types", but it seems to me that a function
        which within itself sets itself to null is doing bad things."
        Not necessarily. A function does not return a value unless it is told to do
        so. That is not a bad thing, because not all functions are written to
        return values. Some functions may act to alter the value of closures and
        other may act to perform operations or extend prototypes. In these cases
        the functions are merely containers of code that are available for reuse,
        but do not return values.

        I promise that I am not trying to be a stickler or a pain. I am just trying
        to pry some specifics out of you because mentioned several things quickly of
        which each are open to interpretation.

        "The corollary to this is name variables more descriptively such that a typo
        won't make it from one valid var to another."
        As I discovered early this spring even well named variables can result in
        unintended collisions between nested operations provided enough reuse and
        inadequate scope definitions upon where those names are reused. This is
        part of the nature of extended complexity that comes with Lambda
        programming.

        Thanks,
        Austin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.