>
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>
> > #1 - function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") }();
> > #2 - (function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") }());
> > #3 - (function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") })();
>
Can I just throw another variation in the mix?
new function(){ WScript.Echo("foo"); };
And now why this works...
You might be used to use "new" when creating a new object. Something like
new A();. But when no arguments are passed on, the parenthesis are optional
(http://goo.gl/HQEZ9 ). There's no specific reason for it, other than that
the specification allows it. When you do need to pass on a parameter, like
jQuery, the parens are obviously required (but that's ok because "new" can
do both).
new function($){ ... }(jQuery);
So when you do `new function()...`, you're actually immediately executing
the constructor of a new anonymous function. But the only difference between
calling a function or a constructor is the context (this). In the patterns
above, the context is absolutely not important. The return object isn't used
either. But you won't have to wrap the whole thing in another set of parens.
Actually don't know what jslint thinks of this, but as a prominent member of
the community once said, jslint can suck it.
Bill: did you also want to know why the outer wrapping parens are required
in this pattern in the first place?
- peter
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
