Reputation: 85
I need to write a function in JavaScript that takes a number and returns an object that returns chainable functions (without using OOP).
Example:
func(3).not().not().equals(4)
would outputs false
.
And:
func(5).equals(5)
would output: true
This is the code I have written:
const func = (obj) => {
const obj2 = {
not: () => {
return !obj
},
equals: (num) => {
return obj === num
}
}
return obj2
}
It works when I call func(3).not()
or func(5).equals(5)
, but doesn't allow me to chain the functions so calling func(5).not().equals(5)
returns an error saying that this is not a function.
What am I not seeing here?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 130
Reputation: 664395
To return another object with the same methods that wraps the new value, simply call func
again:
const func = (obj) => {
const obj2 = {
not: () => {
return func(!obj)
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
},
equals: (num) => {
return obj === num
}
}
return obj2
}
console.log(func(3).not().not().equals(4))
console.log(func(5).equals(5))
console.log(func(3).not())
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 74204
That's a very weird way to compose functions. Let's think about what's actually happening.
func(3).not().not().equals(4)
// is equivalent to
not(not(equals(4)(3)))
// where
const not = x => !x;
const equals = x => y => x === y;
The simplest way to implement this chain would be as follows.
const equals = x => toBool(y => x === y);
const toBool = func => ({
not: () => toBool(x => !func(x)),
func
});
const example1 = equals(4).not().not().func(3);
const example2 = equals(5).func(5);
console.log(example1); // false
console.log(example2); // true
However, this is a forward chain. You want a backward chain. Unfortunately, there's a problem.
.func(x)
marks the end of the chain..equals(x)
marks the end of the chain.This means that in a backward chain, you wouldn't be able to write the following expression.
func(3).not().not().equals(4).add(1)
// expected to be equivalent to
not(not(equals(4)(add(1)(3))))
// but actually equivalent to
not(not(equals(4)(3))).add(1)
// which evaluates to
false.add(1)
On the other hand, you would be able to do this quite easily using a forward chain.
const id = x => x;
const toNum = func => ({
add: x => toNum(y => x + func(y)),
equals: x => toBool(y => x === func(y)),
func
});
const toBool = func => ({
not: () => toBool(x => !func(x)),
func
});
const { add, equals } = toNum(id);
const example1 = equals(4).not().not().func(3);
const example2 = add(1).equals(4).not().not().func(3);
console.log(example1); // false
console.log(example2); // true
By the way, this is an object-oriented design pattern even though it doesn't make use of classes.
My advice would be to write plain old functions.
const add = (x, y) => x + y;
const equals = (x, y) => x === y;
const not = x => !x;
const example1 = not(not(equals(4, 3)));
const example2 = not(not(equals(4, add(1, 3))));
console.log(example1); // false
console.log(example2); // true
The simplest solutions are usually the best. Source: Occam's razor.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 40638
You can use a closure to store both the initial input and the state of the operation:
const func = (input) => {
let not = false
const obj = {
not: () => {
not = !not
return obj
},
equals: (num) => {
return not ? input !== num : input === num
}
}
return obj;
}
console.log(func(5).not().equals(5))
console.log(func(5).not().not().equals(5))
console.log(func(5).not().equals(4))
console.log(func(5).not().not().equals(4))
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 386560
You could take an object for return as interface and store value and negation.
var object = {
func: function (value) {
object.left = value;
return object;
},
not: function() {
object.negation = !object.negation;
return object;
},
equals: function (value) {
var result = value === object.value;
return object.negation ? !result : result;
}
},
func = object.func;
console.log(func(3).not().not().equals(4));
Upvotes: 0