-
-
Save Swivelgames/ca277d2bbf0c23cbef42 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
var StringReference = function(scope, str) { | |
if(str===void 0) { str = scope; scope = window; }; | |
Object.defineProperty(scope, "__"+str, { | |
configurable: true, | |
enumerable: false, | |
get: function(){ | |
return scope[str]; | |
}, | |
set: function(val){ | |
return scope[str] = val; | |
} | |
}); | |
var ret = new Function(); | |
ret.prototype.valueOf = ret.prototype.toString = function(){ | |
return this.get(); | |
}; | |
ret.prototype.set = function(val) { | |
return scope["__"+str] = val; | |
}; | |
ret.prototype.get = function() { | |
return scope["__"+str] | |
}; | |
return new ret(); | |
}; |
The issue I noticed when writing the above example was the fragility involved in passing around the portable property. Because of the fragility, accidentally passing in myString instead of myString.__instance__
would no longer allow the setter to be called within the setString()
method.
Because of this, the only other option would be to make it impossible to dereference and just scrap the __instance__
method.
The issue with this is that this sort of functionality could be incredibly cumbersome for JavaScript engines to implement. This type of functionality would probably have a couple implementations at most before dying off, with browsers like Internet Explorer shrieking at the idea that they might have to implement something as difficult as setters/getters in the first place.
The nice thing about the "old fashioned," manually written getter/setter objects was that they were portable regardless of their value.
Using myVar.getValue()
and myVar.setValue()
would always update the variable in the initial scope back when we declared the myVar
object, and we could lug it around wherever we needed to. Unfortunately, we cannot do this with native setters/getters...
The real issue here is that there is no such thing as a native Property prototype, so there is no real "instance" of anything to retrieve.
Though, a Property prototype that does not have a value, and is instead bound to a certain scope item, might look something like this if it were to be implemented:
In this case, if you had an instance
foo
that lived inx.foo
, you could store the instance ofx.foo
into another variable by using the following...This would then, going by the original example in the previous comment, eventually set x._foo to "hello world"; So, retrieving
fooProp
,x.foo
, orx._foo
would return "hello world".With this, it could open the door for any type of variable to be reference-able.
Let me give you an example and I'll be done...
Say you want to pass a String (which is immutable) to a function and change it by reference. By allowing for a Property instance, this would now be possible:
Example:
All of the three above
console.log
statements would return an immutable string of"newValue"
.