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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.