Variation on Javascript Function.prototype.bind I want to make sure I understand

Question

I am going through some code left behind by some long-gone developers and came across this:

Function.prototype.binding = function ()
{
  if(arguments.length < 2 && typeof arguments[0] == "undefined") return this;
  var __method = this, args = jQuery.makeArray(arguments), object = args.shift();
  return function()
  { return __method.apply(object, args.concat(jQuery.makeArray(arguments))); };
};

and it is referenced elsewhere in a couple of places, this DataTables callback function is representitive:

"fnRowCallback": function (nRow, aData, iDisplayIndex)
  {
    nRow = this.options.fnRowCallback(nRow, aData, iDisplayIndex);
    return nRow;
  }.binding(this),

I think that what this is accomplishing is to set the this context in the function to the object passed into the .binding; is that correct? And is this way of doing that considered a good practice?

Thanks, Matthew

bobince · Accepted Answer · 2011-08-31 21:59:38Z

1

I think that what this is accomplishing is to set the this context in the function to the object passed into the .binding

Correct. Also it optionally accepts some extra arguments, which get passed into the function at call time. So if you did obj.f.binding(obj, 1, 2, 3)(4, 5, 6), the arguments received by obj.f would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

This method reproduces the standard ECMAScript Fifth Edition method Function#bind, but is named differently, presumably as it is not completely compliant with the interface defined by that method.

answered Aug 31, 2011 at 21:59

bobince

538k111 gold badges675 silver badges846 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

Matthew Nichols Over a year ago

OK that makes sense. I heard about some polyfills that 'upgrade" the javascript engine up to ECMASCript 5 (or partially anyway). Would I be better off refactoring the code to use a more established library like that rather than this homegrown code (sort of refactoring by deletion)?

bobince Over a year ago

I'd personally go with a (potentially-polyfilled) ECMA-compliant Function#bind where possible... not sure it's worth the bother of changing an old project, though. FWIW I think it's relatively unlikely that anything is relying on the difference between binding and bind (mainly to do with using the bound function as a constructor).

hvgotcodes · Accepted Answer · 2011-08-31 21:37:48Z

1

what the code is doing is adding a method, binding to the Function prototype. Since Function is a javascript object (functions are objects in javascript), this basically adds a method to default javascript behavior.

This is a common practice in js frameworks. This particular method appears to allow you to set the scope of the method. In your second example, you could change binding(this) to binding(someObj), and when the method executes, this in the scope of the method would be someObj.

answered Aug 31, 2011 at 21:37

hvgotcodes

121k33 gold badges209 silver badges237 bronze badges

1 Comment

Matthew Nichols Over a year ago

Thanks for responding. That part I understand, but am I interpreting the intent of the binding method correctly?

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Variation on Javascript Function.prototype.bind I want to make sure I understand

2 Answers 2

2 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

2 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related