Well, the problem is that the variable i
, within each of your anonymous functions, is bound to the same variable outside of the function.
ES6 solution: let
ECMAScript 6 (ES6) introduces new let
and const
keywords that are scoped differently than var
-based variables. For example, in a loop with a let
-based index, each iteration through the loop will have a new variable i
with loop scope, so your code would work as you expect. There are many resources, but I'd recommend 2ality's block-scoping post as a great source of information.
for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
funcs[i] = function() {
console.log("My value: " + i);
};
}
Beware, though, that IE9-IE11 and Edge prior to Edge 14 support let
but get the above wrong (they don't create a new i
each time, so all the functions above would log 3 like they would if we used var
). Edge 14 finally gets it right.
ES5.1 solution: forEach
With the relatively widespread availability of the Array.prototype.forEach
function (in 2015), it's worth noting that in those situations involving iteration primarily over an array of values, .forEach()
provides a clean, natural way to get a distinct closure for every iteration. That is, assuming you've got some sort of array containing values (DOM references, objects, whatever), and the problem arises of setting up callbacks specific to each element, you can do this:
var someArray = [ /* whatever */ ];
// ...
someArray.forEach(function(arrayElement) {
// ... code code code for this one element
someAsynchronousFunction(arrayElement, function() {
arrayElement.doSomething();
});
});
The idea is that each invocation of the callback function used with the .forEach
loop will be its own closure. The parameter passed in to that handler is the array element specific to that particular step of the iteration. If it's used in an asynchronous callback, it won't collide with any of the other callbacks established at other steps of the iteration.
If you happen to be working in jQuery, the $.each()
function gives you a similar capability.
Classic solution: Closures
What you want to do is bind the variable within each function to a separate, unchanging value outside of the function:
var funcs = [];
function createfunc(i) {
return function() {
console.log("My value: " + i);
};
}
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
funcs[i] = createfunc(i);
}
for (var j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
// and now let's run each one to see
funcs[j]();
}
Since there is no block scope in JavaScript - only function scope - by wrapping the function creation in a new function, you ensure that the value of "i" remains as you intended.
This article about Javascript Strict Mode might interest you: John Resig - ECMAScript 5 Strict Mode, JSON, and More
To quote some interesting parts:
Strict Mode is a new feature in ECMAScript 5 that allows you to place a program, or a function, in a "strict" operating context. This strict context prevents certain actions from being taken and throws more exceptions.
And:
Strict mode helps out in a couple ways:
- It catches some common coding bloopers, throwing exceptions.
- It prevents, or throws errors, when relatively "unsafe" actions are taken (such as gaining access to the global object).
- It disables features that are confusing or poorly thought out.
Also note you can apply "strict mode" to the whole file... Or you can use it only for a specific function (still quoting from John Resig's article):
// Non-strict code...
(function(){
"use strict";
// Define your library strictly...
})();
// Non-strict code...
Which might be helpful if you have to mix old and new code ;-)
So, I suppose it's a bit like the "use strict"
you can use in Perl (hence the name?): it helps you make fewer errors, by detecting more things that could lead to breakages.
Strict mode is now supported by all major browsers.
Inside native ECMAScript modules (with import
and export
statements) and ES6 classes, strict mode is always enabled and cannot be disabled.
Best Answer
Using
parseFloat
will help you:See it working at: http://jsfiddle.net/e8U6W/
Also, a little-known put more performant way of doing this would be simply to
-0
:(See: Is Subtracting Zero some sort of JavaScript performance trick?)
Be sure to comment this, though as its not as obvious to those reading your code as
parseFloat