Function overload in JavaScript
var __slice = [].slice;
var __toString = {}.toString;
var __noop = function(){};
function typeOf(x) {
return __toString.call(x).slice(8,-1);
}
function overload(fs) {
return function() {
var types = __slice.call(arguments).map(typeOf);
var f = fs[types.join('_')] || __noop;
return f.apply(this, arguments);
};
}
Usage:
var fn = overload({
String: function greet(s) {
return 'Hello '+ s;
},
Number: function square(x) {
return x * x;
},
Array_Function: function map(xs, f) {
return xs.map(f);
},
RegExp_String_Number: function replace(re, s, x) {
return s.replace(re, x);
}
});
fn('Joe'); //=> "Hello Joe"
fn(3); //=> 9
fn([1,2,3], function(x){ return x+1 }); //=> [2,3,4]
fn(/a/g, 'wawa', 2); //=> "w2w2"
Written by Cedric Ruiz
Related protips
3 Responses
Excuse my ignorance, but what's the use case of this tip? Why would I do this?
over 1 year ago
·
It's useful in some cases. It's just a different pattern where you have a function that can take arguments of many types. For example the jQuery constructor could be done with overloading as it takes an element, an array, a pseudo-array, a jQuery collection, a string, etc... Here's a simple example:
var double = overload({
String: function(x) {
return x + x;
},
Number: function(x) {
return x * 2;
}
});
console.log(double('hey')); //=> heyhey
console.log(double(9)); //=> 18
You can use multiple if
statements to check the type and the arguements
object to count the arguments, but the typeof
operator is not reliable and it'll end up looking ugly and difficult to understand; you'd have to write comments to clarify what you're checking. With overloading you solve this issue.
over 1 year ago
·
isn't this a bit poor performant?
over 1 year ago
·
Have a fresh tip? Share with Coderwall community!
Post
Post a tip
Best
#Function
Authors
Chip Castle
21.68K
Sponsored by #native_company# — Learn More
#native_title#
#native_desc#