let list p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
I have such a function to check if the list is well formatted or not. The list shouldn't have an empty string and nulls. I don't get what I am missing since Check.Verbose list returns falsifiable output.
How should I approach the problem?
I think you don't quite understand FsCheck yet. When you do Check.Verbose someFunction, FsCheck generates a bunch of random input for your function, and fails if the function ever returns false. The idea is that the function you pass to Check.Verbose should be a property that will always be true no matter what the input is. For example, if you reverse a list twice then it should return the original list no matter what the original list was. This property is usually expressed as follows:
let revTwiceIsSameList (lst : int list) =
List.rev (List.rev lst) = lst
Check.Verbose revTwiceIsSameList // This will pass
Your function, on the other hand, is a good, useful function that checks whether a list is well-formed in your data model... but it's not a property in the sense that FsCheck uses the term (that is, a function that should always return true no matter what the input is). To make an FsCheck-style property, you want to write a function that looks generally like:
let verifyMyFunc (input : string list) =
if (input is well-formed) then // TODO: Figure out how to check that
myFunc input = true
else
myFunc input = false
Check.Verbose verifyMyFunc
(Note that I've named your function myFunc instead of list, because as a general rule, you should never name a function list. The name list is a data type (e.g., string list or int list), and if you name a function list, you'll just confuse yourself later on when the same name has two different meanings.)
Now, the problem here is: how do you write the "input is well-formed" part of my verifyMyFunc example? You can't just use your function to check it, because that would be testing your function against itself, which is not a useful test. (The test would essentially become "myFunc input = myFunc input", which would always return true even if your function had a bug in it — unless your function returned random input, of course). So you'd have to write another function to check if the input is well-formed, and here the problem is that the function you've written is the best, most correct way to check for well-formed input. If you wrote another function to check, it would boil down to not (List.contains "" || List.contains null) in the end, and again, you'd be essentially checking your function against itself.
In this specific case, I don't think FsCheck is the right tool for the job, because your function is so simple. Is this a homework assignment, where your instructor is requiring you to use FsCheck? Or are you trying to learn FsCheck on your own, and using this exercise to teach yourself FsCheck? If it's the former, then I'd suggest pointing your instructor to this question and see what he says about my answer. If it's the latter, then I'd suggest finding some slightly more complicated function to use to learn FsCheck. A useful function here would be one where you can find some property that should always be true, like in the List.rev example (reversing a list twice should restore the original list, so that's a useful property to test with). Or if you're having trouble finding an always-true property, at least find a function that you can implement in at least two different ways, so that you can use FsCheck to check that both implementations return the same result for any given input.
Adding to #rmunn's excellent answer:
if you wanted to test myFunc (yes I also renamed your list function) you could do it by creating some fixed cases that you already know the answer to, like:
let myFunc p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
let tests =
testList "myFunc" [
testCase "empty list" <| fun()-> "empty" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ ])
testCase "nonempty list" <| fun()-> "hi" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ "hi" ])
testCase "null case" <| fun()-> "null" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ null ])
testCase "empty string" <| fun()-> "\"\"" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ "" ])
]
Tests.runTests config tests
Here I am using a testing library called Expecto.
If you run this you would see one of the tests fails:
Failed! myFunc/empty string:
"". Actual value was true but had expected it to be false.
because your original function has a bug; it checks for space " " instead of empty string "".
After you fix it all tests pass:
4 tests run in 00:00:00.0105346 for myFunc – 4 passed, 0 ignored, 0
failed, 0 errored. Success!
At this point you checked only 4 simple and obvious cases with zero or one element each. Many times functions fail when fed more complex data. The problem is how many more test cases can you add? The possibilities are literally infinite!
FsCheck
This is where FsCheck can help you. With FsCheck you can check for properties (or rules) that should always be true. It takes a little bit of creativity to think of good ones to test for and granted, sometimes it is not easy.
In your case we can test for concatenation. The rule would be like this:
If two lists are concatenated the result of MyFunc applied to the concatenation should be true if both lists are well formed and false if any of them is malformed.
You can express that as a function this way:
let myFuncConcatenation l1 l2 = myFunc (l1 # l2) = (myFunc l1 && myFunc l2)
l1 # l2 is the concatenation of both lists.
Now if you call FsCheck:
FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation
It tries a 100 different combinations trying to make it fail but in the end it gives you the Ok:
0:
["X"]
["^"; ""]
1:
["C"; ""; "M"]
[]
2:
[""; ""; ""]
[""; null; ""; ""]
3:
...
Ok, passed 100 tests.
This does not necessarily mean your function is correct, there still could be a failing combination that FsCheck did not try or it could be wrong in a different way. But it is a pretty good indication that it is correct in terms of the concatenation property.
Testing for the concatenation property with FsCheck actually allowed us to call myFunc 300 times with different values and prove that it did not crash or returned an unexpected value.
FsCheck does not replace case by case testing, it complements it:
Notice that if you had run FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation over the original function, which had a bug, it would still pass. The reason is the bug was independent of the concatenation property. This means that you should always have the case by case testing where you check the most important cases and you can complement that with FsCheck to test other situations.
Here are other properties you can check, these test the two false conditions independently:
let myFuncHasNulls l = if List.contains null l then myFunc l = false else true
let myFuncHasEmpty l = if List.contains "" l then myFunc l = false else true
Check.Quick myFuncHasNulls
Check.Quick myFuncHasEmpty
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
I have a question on Java 8 Functional Programming. I am trying to achieve something using functional programming, and need some guidance on how to do it.
My requirement is to wrap every method execution inside timer function which times the method execution. Here's the example of timer function and 2 functions I need to time.
timerMethod(String timerName, Function func){
timer.start(timerName)
func.apply()
timer.stop()
}
functionA(String arg1, String arg2)
functionB(int arg1, intArg2, String ...arg3)
I am trying to pass functionA & functionB to timerMethod, but functionA & functionB expects different number & type of arguments for execution.
Any ideas how can I achieve it.
Thanks !!
you should separate it into two things by Separation of Concerns to make your code easy to use and maintaining. one is timing, another is invoking, for example:
// v--- invoking occurs in request-time
R1 result1 = timerMethod("functionA", () -> functionA("foo", "bar"));
R2 result2 = timerMethod("functionB", () -> functionB(1, 2, "foo", "bar"));
// the timerMethod only calculate the timing-cost
<T> T timerMethod(String timerName, Supplier<T> func) {
timer.start(timerName);
try {
return func.get();
} finally {
timer.stop();
}
}
IF you want to return a functional interface rather than the result of that method, you can done it as below:
Supplier<R1> timingFunctionA =timerMethod("A", ()-> functionA("foo", "bar"));
Supplier<R2> timingFunctionB =timerMethod("B", ()-> functionB(1, 2, "foo", "bar"));
<T> Supplier<T> timerMethod(String timerName, Supplier<T> func) {
// v--- calculate the timing-cost when the wrapper function is invoked
return () -> {
timer.start(timerName);
try {
return func.get();
} finally {
timer.stop();
}
};
}
Notes
IF the return type of all of your functions is void, you can replacing Supplier with Runnable and then make the timerMethod's return type to void & remove return keyword from timerMethod.
IF some of your functions will be throws a checked exception, you can replacing Supplier with Callable & invoke Callable#call instead.
Don't hold onto the arguments and then pass them at the last moment. Pass them immediately, but delay calling the function by wrapping it with another function:
Producer<?> f1 =
() -> functionA(arg1, arg2);
Producer<?> f2 =
() -> functionB(arg1, arg2, arg3);
Here, I'm wrapping each function call in a lambda (() ->...) that takes 0 arguments. Then, just call them later with no arguments:
f1()
f2()
This forms a closure over the arguments that you supplied in the lambda, which allows you to use the variables later, even though normally they would have been GC'd for going out of scope.
Note, I have a ? as the type of the Producer since I don't know what type your functions return. Change the ? to the return type of each function.
Introduction
The other answers show how to use a closure to capture the arguments of your function, no matter its number. This is a nice approach and it's very useful, if you know the arguments in advance, so that they can be captured.
Here I'd like to show two other approaches that don't require you to know the arguments in advance...
If you think it in an abstract way, there are no such things as functions with multiple arguments. Functions either receive one set of values (aka a tuple), or they receive one single argument and return another function that receives another single argument, which in turn returns another one-argument function that returns... etc, with the last function of the sequence returning an actual result (aka currying).
Methods in Java might have multiple arguments, though. So the challenge is to build functions that always receive one single argument (either by means of tuples or currying), but that actually invoke methods that receive multiple arguments.
Approach #1: Tuples
So the first approach is to use a Tuple helper class and have your function receive one tuple, either a Tuple2 or Tuple3:
So, the functionA of your example might receive one single Tuple2<String, String> as an argument:
Function<Tuple2<String, String>, SomeReturnType> functionA = tuple ->
functionA(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
And you could invoke it as follows:
SomeReturnType resultA = functionA.apply(Tuple2.of("a", "b"));
Now, in order to decorate the functionA with your timerMethod method, you'd need to do a few modifications:
static <T, R> Function<T, R> timerMethod(
String timerName,
Function<? super T, ? extends R> func){
return t -> {
timer.start(timerName);
R result = func.apply(t);
timer.stop();
return result;
};
}
Please note that you should use a try/finally block to make your code more robust, as shown in holi-java's answer.
Here's how you might use your timerMethod method for functionA:
Function<Tuple2<String, String>, SomeReturnType> timedFunctionA = timerMethod(
"timerA",
tuple -> functionA(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
And you can invoke timedFunctionA as any other function, passing it the arguments now, at invocation time:
SomeReturnType resultA = timedFunctionA.apply(Tuple2.of("a", "b"));
You can take a similar approach with the functionB of your example, except that you'd need to use a Tuple3<Integer, Integer, String[]> for the argument (taking care of the varargs arguments).
The downside of this approach is that you need to create many Tuple classes, i.e. Tuple2, Tuple3, Tuple4, etc, because Java lacks built-in support for tuples.
Approach #2: Currying
The other approach is to use a technique called currying, i.e. functions that accept one single argument and return another function that accepts another single argument, etc, with the last function of the sequence returning the actual result.
Here's how to create a currified function for your 2-argument method functionA:
Function<String, Function<String, SomeReturnType>> currifiedFunctionA =
arg1 -> arg2 -> functionA(arg1, arg2);
Invoke it as follows:
SomeReturnType result = currifiedFunctionA.apply("a").apply("b");
If you want to decorate currifiedFunctionA with the timerMethod method defined above, you can do as follows:
Function<String, Function<String, SomeReturnType>> timedCurrifiedFunctionA =
arg1 -> timerMethod("timerCurryA", arg2 -> functionA(arg1, arg2));
Then, invoke timedCurrifiedFunctionA exactly as you'd do with any currified function:
SomeReturnType result = timedCurrifiedFunctionA.apply("a").apply("b");
Please note that you only need to decorate the last function of the sequence, i.e. the one that makes the actual call to the method, which is what we want to measure.
For the method functionB of your example, you can take a similar approach, except that the type of the currified function would now be:
Function<Integer, Function<Integer, Function<String[], SomeResultType>>>
which is quite cumbersome, to say the least. So this is the downside of currified functions in Java: the syntax to express their type. On the other hand, currified functions are very handy to work with and allow you to apply several functional programming techniques without needing to write helper classes.
I asked a question about Currying and closures were mentioned.
What is a closure? How does it relate to currying?
Variable scope
When you declare a local variable, that variable has a scope. Generally, local variables exist only within the block or function in which you declare them.
function() {
var a = 1;
console.log(a); // works
}
console.log(a); // fails
If I try to access a local variable, most languages will look for it in the current scope, then up through the parent scopes until they reach the root scope.
var a = 1;
function() {
console.log(a); // works
}
console.log(a); // works
When a block or function is done with, its local variables are no longer needed and are usually blown out of memory.
This is how we normally expect things to work.
A closure is a persistent local variable scope
A closure is a persistent scope which holds on to local variables even after the code execution has moved out of that block. Languages which support closure (such as JavaScript, Swift, and Ruby) will allow you to keep a reference to a scope (including its parent scopes), even after the block in which those variables were declared has finished executing, provided you keep a reference to that block or function somewhere.
The scope object and all its local variables are tied to the function and will persist as long as that function persists.
This gives us function portability. We can expect any variables that were in scope when the function was first defined to still be in scope when we later call the function, even if we call the function in a completely different context.
For example
Here's a really simple example in JavaScript that illustrates the point:
outer = function() {
var a = 1;
var inner = function() {
console.log(a);
}
return inner; // this returns a function
}
var fnc = outer(); // execute outer to get inner
fnc();
Here I have defined a function within a function. The inner function gains access to all the outer function's local variables, including a. The variable a is in scope for the inner function.
Normally when a function exits, all its local variables are blown away. However, if we return the inner function and assign it to a variable fnc so that it persists after outer has exited, all of the variables that were in scope when inner was defined also persist. The variable a has been closed over -- it is within a closure.
Note that the variable a is totally private to fnc. This is a way of creating private variables in a functional programming language such as JavaScript.
As you might be able to guess, when I call fnc() it prints the value of a, which is "1".
In a language without closure, the variable a would have been garbage collected and thrown away when the function outer exited. Calling fnc would have thrown an error because a no longer exists.
In JavaScript, the variable a persists because the variable scope is created when the function is first declared and persists for as long as the function continues to exist.
a belongs to the scope of outer. The scope of inner has a parent pointer to the scope of outer. fnc is a variable which points to inner. a persists as long as fnc persists. a is within the closure.
Further reading (watching)
I made a YouTube video looking at this code with some practical examples of usage.
I'll give an example (in JavaScript):
function makeCounter () {
var count = 0;
return function () {
count += 1;
return count;
}
}
var x = makeCounter();
x(); returns 1
x(); returns 2
...etc...
What this function, makeCounter, does is it returns a function, which we've called x, that will count up by one each time it's called. Since we're not providing any parameters to x, it must somehow remember the count. It knows where to find it based on what's called lexical scoping - it must look to the spot where it's defined to find the value. This "hidden" value is what is called a closure.
Here is my currying example again:
function add (a) {
return function (b) {
return a + b;
}
}
var add3 = add(3);
add3(4); returns 7
What you can see is that when you call add with the parameter a (which is 3), that value is contained in the closure of the returned function that we're defining to be add3. That way, when we call add3, it knows where to find the a value to perform the addition.
First of all, contrary to what most of the people here tell you, closure is not a function! So what is it?
It is a set of symbols defined in a function's "surrounding context" (known as its environment) which make it a CLOSED expression (that is, an expression in which every symbol is defined and has a value, so it can be evaluated).
For example, when you have a JavaScript function:
function closed(x) {
return x + 3;
}
it is a closed expression because all the symbols occurring in it are defined in it (their meanings are clear), so you can evaluate it. In other words, it is self-contained.
But if you have a function like this:
function open(x) {
return x*y + 3;
}
it is an open expression because there are symbols in it which have not been defined in it. Namely, y. When looking at this function, we can't tell what y is and what does it mean, we don't know its value, so we cannot evaluate this expression. I.e. we cannot call this function until we tell what y is supposed to mean in it. This y is called a free variable.
This y begs for a definition, but this definition is not part of the function – it is defined somewhere else, in its "surrounding context" (also known as the environment). At least that's what we hope for :P
For example, it could be defined globally:
var y = 7;
function open(x) {
return x*y + 3;
}
Or it could be defined in a function which wraps it:
var global = 2;
function wrapper(y) {
var w = "unused";
return function(x) {
return x*y + 3;
}
}
The part of the environment which gives the free variables in an expression their meanings, is the closure. It is called this way, because it turns an open expression into a closed one, by supplying these missing definitions for all of its free variables, so that we could evaluate it.
In the example above, the inner function (which we didn't give a name because we didn't need it) is an open expression because the variable y in it is free – its definition is outside the function, in the function which wraps it. The environment for that anonymous function is the set of variables:
{
global: 2,
w: "unused",
y: [whatever has been passed to that wrapper function as its parameter `y`]
}
Now, the closure is that part of this environment which closes the inner function by supplying the definitions for all its free variables. In our case, the only free variable in the inner function was y, so the closure of that function is this subset of its environment:
{
y: [whatever has been passed to that wrapper function as its parameter `y`]
}
The other two symbols defined in the environment are not part of the closure of that function, because it doesn't require them to run. They are not needed to close it.
More on the theory behind that here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/36878651/434562
It's worth to note that in the example above, the wrapper function returns its inner function as a value. The moment we call this function can be remote in time from the moment the function has been defined (or created). In particular, its wrapping function is no longer running, and its parameters which has been on the call stack are no longer there :P This makes a problem, because the inner function needs y to be there when it is called! In other words, it requires the variables from its closure to somehow outlive the wrapper function and be there when needed. Therefore, the inner function has to make a snapshot of these variables which make its closure and store them somewhere safe for later use. (Somewhere outside the call stack.)
And this is why people often confuse the term closure to be that special type of function which can do such snapshots of the external variables they use, or the data structure used to store these variables for later. But I hope you understand now that they are not the closure itself – they're just ways to implement closures in a programming language, or language mechanisms which allows the variables from the function's closure to be there when needed. There's a lot of misconceptions around closures which (unnecessarily) make this subject much more confusing and complicated than it actually is.
Kyle's answer is pretty good. I think the only additional clarification is that the closure is basically a snapshot of the stack at the point that the lambda function is created. Then when the function is re-executed the stack is restored to that state before executing the function. Thus as Kyle mentions, that hidden value (count) is available when the lambda function executes.
A closure is a function that can reference state in another function. For example, in Python, this uses the closure "inner":
def outer (a):
b = "variable in outer()"
def inner (c):
print a, b, c
return inner
# Now the return value from outer() can be saved for later
func = outer ("test")
func (1) # prints "test variable in outer() 1
To help facilitate understanding of closures it might be useful to examine how they might be implemented in a procedural language. This explanation will follow a simplistic implementation of closures in Scheme.
To start, I must introduce the concept of a namespace. When you enter a command into a Scheme interpreter, it must evaluate the various symbols in the expression and obtain their value. Example:
(define x 3)
(define y 4)
(+ x y) returns 7
The define expressions store the value 3 in the spot for x and the value 4 in the spot for y. Then when we call (+ x y), the interpreter looks up the values in the namespace and is able to perform the operation and return 7.
However, in Scheme there are expressions that allow you to temporarily override the value of a symbol. Here's an example:
(define x 3)
(define y 4)
(let ((x 5))
(+ x y)) returns 9
x returns 3
What the let keyword does is introduces a new namespace with x as the value 5. You will notice that it's still able to see that y is 4, making the sum returned to be 9. You can also see that once the expression has ended x is back to being 3. In this sense, x has been temporarily masked by the local value.
Procedural and object-oriented languages have a similar concept. Whenever you declare a variable in a function that has the same name as a global variable you get the same effect.
How would we implement this? A simple way is with a linked list - the head contains the new value and the tail contains the old namespace. When you need to look up a symbol, you start at the head and work your way down the tail.
Now let's skip to the implementation of first-class functions for the moment. More or less, a function is a set of instructions to execute when the function is called culminating in the return value. When we read in a function, we can store these instructions behind the scenes and run them when the function is called.
(define x 3)
(define (plus-x y)
(+ x y))
(let ((x 5))
(plus-x 4)) returns ?
We define x to be 3 and plus-x to be its parameter, y, plus the value of x. Finally we call plus-x in an environment where x has been masked by a new x, this one valued 5. If we merely store the operation, (+ x y), for the function plus-x, since we're in the context of x being 5 the result returned would be 9. This is what's called dynamic scoping.
However, Scheme, Common Lisp, and many other languages have what's called lexical scoping - in addition to storing the operation (+ x y) we also store the namespace at that particular point. That way, when we're looking up the values we can see that x, in this context, is really 3. This is a closure.
(define x 3)
(define (plus-x y)
(+ x y))
(let ((x 5))
(plus-x 4)) returns 7
In summary, we can use a linked list to store the state of the namespace at the time of function definition, allowing us to access variables from enclosing scopes, as well as providing us the ability to locally mask a variable without affecting the rest of the program.
Functions containing no free variables are called pure functions.
Functions containing one or more free variables are called closures.
var pure = function pure(x){
return x
// only own environment is used
}
var foo = "bar"
var closure = function closure(){
return foo
// foo is a free variable from the outer environment
}
src: https://leanpub.com/javascriptallongesix/read#leanpub-auto-if-functions-without-free-variables-are-pure-are-closures-impure
Here's a real world example of why Closures kick ass... This is straight out of my Javascript code. Let me illustrate.
Function.prototype.delay = function(ms /*[, arg...]*/) {
var fn = this,
args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
return window.setTimeout(function() {
return fn.apply(fn, args);
}, ms);
};
And here's how you would use it:
var startPlayback = function(track) {
Player.play(track);
};
startPlayback(someTrack);
Now imagine you want the playback to start delayed, like for example 5 seconds later after this code snippet runs. Well that's easy with delay and it's closure:
startPlayback.delay(5000, someTrack);
// Keep going, do other things
When you call delay with 5000ms, the first snippet runs, and stores the passed in arguments in it's closure. Then 5 seconds later, when the setTimeout callback happens, the closure still maintains those variables, so it can call the original function with the original parameters.
This is a type of currying, or function decoration.
Without closures, you would have to somehow maintain those variables state outside the function, thus littering code outside the function with something that logically belongs inside it. Using closures can greatly improve the quality and readability of your code.
tl;dr
A closure is a function and its scope assigned to (or used as) a variable. Thus, the name closure: the scope and the function is enclosed and used just like any other entity.
In depth Wikipedia style explanation
According to Wikipedia, a closure is:
Techniques for implementing lexically scoped name binding in languages with first-class functions.
What does that mean? Lets look into some definitions.
I will explain closures and other related definitions by using this example:
function startAt(x) {
return function (y) {
return x + y;
}
}
var closure1 = startAt(1);
var closure2 = startAt(5);
console.log(closure1(3)); // 4 (x == 1, y == 3)
console.log(closure2(3)); // 8 (x == 5, y == 3)
First-class functions
Basically that means we can use functions just like any other entity. We can modify them, pass them as arguments, return them from functions or assign them for variables. Technically speaking, they are first-class citizens, hence the name: first-class functions.
In the example above, startAt returns an (anonymous) function which function get assigned to closure1 and closure2. So as you see JavaScript treats functions just like any other entities (first-class citizens).
Name binding
Name binding is about finding out what data a variable (identifier) references. The scope is really important here, as that is the thing that will determine how a binding is resolved.
In the example above:
In the inner anonymous function's scope, y is bound to 3.
In startAt's scope, x is bound to 1 or 5 (depending on the closure).
Inside the anonymous function's scope, x is not bound to any value, so it needs to be resolved in an upper (startAt's) scope.
Lexical scoping
As Wikipedia says, the scope:
Is the region of a computer program where the binding is valid: where the name can be used to refer to the entity.
There are two techniques:
Lexical (static) scoping: A variable's definition is resolved by searching its containing block or function, then if that fails searching the outer containing block, and so on.
Dynamic scoping: Calling function is searched, then the function which called that calling function, and so on, progressing up the call stack.
For more explanation, check out this question and take a look at Wikipedia.
In the example above, we can see that JavaScript is lexically scoped, because when x is resolved, the binding is searched in the upper (startAt's) scope, based on the source code (the anonymous function that looks for x is defined inside startAt) and not based on the call stack, the way (the scope where) the function was called.
Wrapping (closuring) up
In our example, when we call startAt, it will return a (first-class) function that will be assigned to closure1 and closure2 thus a closure is created, because the passed variables 1 and 5 will be saved within startAt's scope, that will be enclosed with the returned anonymous function. When we call this anonymous function via closure1 and closure2 with the same argument (3), the value of y will be found immediately (as that is the parameter of that function), but x is not bound in the scope of the anonymous function, so the resolution continues in the (lexically) upper function scope (that was saved in the closure) where x is found to be bound to either 1 or 5. Now we know everything for the summation so the result can be returned, then printed.
Now you should understand closures and how they behave, which is a fundamental part of JavaScript.
Currying
Oh, and you also learned what currying is about: you use functions (closures) to pass each argument of an operation instead of using one functions with multiple parameters.
Closure is a feature in JavaScript where a function has access to its own scope variables, access to the outer function variables and access to the global variables.
Closure has access to its outer function scope even after the outer function has returned. This means a closure can remember and access variables and arguments of its outer function even after the function has finished.
The inner function can access the variables defined in its own scope, the outer function’s scope, and the global scope. And the outer function can access the variable defined in its own scope and the global scope.
Example of Closure:
var globalValue = 5;
function functOuter() {
var outerFunctionValue = 10;
//Inner function has access to the outer function value
//and the global variables
function functInner() {
var innerFunctionValue = 5;
alert(globalValue + outerFunctionValue + innerFunctionValue);
}
functInner();
}
functOuter();
Output will be 20 which sum of its inner function own variable, outer function variable and global variable value.
In a normal situation, variables are bound by scoping rule: Local variables work only within the defined function. Closure is a way of breaking this rule temporarily for convenience.
def n_times(a_thing)
return lambda{|n| a_thing * n}
end
in the above code, lambda(|n| a_thing * n} is the closure because a_thing is referred by the lambda (an anonymous function creator).
Now, if you put the resulting anonymous function in a function variable.
foo = n_times(4)
foo will break the normal scoping rule and start using 4 internally.
foo.call(3)
returns 12.
In short, function pointer is just a pointer to a location in the program code base (like program counter). Whereas Closure = Function pointer + Stack frame.
.
Closures provide JavaScript with state.
State in programming simply means remembering things.
Example
var a = 0;
a = a + 1; // => 1
a = a + 1; // => 2
a = a + 1; // => 3
In the case above, state is stored in the variable "a". We follow by adding 1 to "a" several times. We can only do that because we are able to "remember" the value. The state holder, "a", holds that value in memory.
Often, in programming languages, you want to keep track of things, remember information and access it at a later time.
This, in other languages, is commonly accomplished through the use of classes. A class, just like variables, keeps track of its state. And instances of that class, in turns, also have state within them. State simply means information that you can store and retrieve later.
Example
class Bread {
constructor (weight) {
this.weight = weight;
}
render () {
return `My weight is ${this.weight}!`;
}
}
How can we access "weight" from within the "render" method? Well, thanks to state. Each instance of the class Bread can render its own weight by reading it from the "state", a place in memory where we could store that information.
Now, JavaScript is a very unique language which historically does not have classes (it now does, but under the hood there's only functions and variables) so Closures provide a way for JavaScript to remember things and access them later.
Example
var n = 0;
var count = function () {
n = n + 1;
return n;
};
count(); // # 1
count(); // # 2
count(); // # 3
The example above achieved the goal of "keeping state" with a variable. This is great! However, this has the disadvantage that the variable (the "state" holder) is now exposed. We can do better. We can use Closures.
Example
var countGenerator = function () {
var n = 0;
var count = function () {
n = n + 1;
return n;
};
return count;
};
var count = countGenerator();
count(); // # 1
count(); // # 2
count(); // # 3
This is fantastic.
Now our "count" function can count. It is only able to do so because it can "hold" state. The state in this case is the variable "n". This variable is now closed. Closed in time and space. In time because you won't ever be able to recover it, change it, assign it a value or interact directly with it. In space because it's geographically nested within the "countGenerator" function.
Why is this fantastic? Because without involving any other sophisticated and complicated tool (e.g. classes, methods, instances, etc) we are able to
1. conceal
2. control from a distance
We conceal the state, the variable "n", which makes it a private variable!
We also have created an API that can control this variable in a pre-defined way. In particular, we can call the API like so "count()" and that adds 1 to "n" from a "distance". In no way, shape or form anyone will ever be able to access "n" except through the API.
JavaScript is truly amazing in its simplicity.
Closures are a big part of why this is.
Here is another real life example, and using a scripting language popular in games - Lua. I needed to slightly change the way a library function worked to avoid a problem with stdin not being available.
local old_dofile = dofile
function dofile( filename )
if filename == nil then
error( 'Can not use default of stdin.' )
end
old_dofile( filename )
end
The value of old_dofile disappears when this block of code finishes it's scope (because it's local), however the value has been enclosed in a closure, so the new redefined dofile function CAN access it, or rather a copy stored along with the function as an 'upvalue'.
From Lua.org:
When a function is written enclosed in another function, it has full access to local variables from the enclosing function; this feature is called lexical scoping. Although that may sound obvious, it is not. Lexical scoping, plus first-class functions, is a powerful concept in a programming language, but few languages support that concept.
If you are from the Java world, you can compare a closure with a member function of a class. Look at this example
var f=function(){
var a=7;
var g=function(){
return a;
}
return g;
}
The function g is a closure: g closes a in. So g can be compared with a member function, a can be compared with a class field, and the function f with a class.
Closures
Whenever we have a function defined inside another function, the inner function has access to the variables declared
in the outer function. Closures are best explained with examples.
In Listing 2-18, you can see that the inner function has access to a variable (variableInOuterFunction) from the
outer scope. The variables in the outer function have been closed by (or bound in) the inner function. Hence the term
closure. The concept in itself is simple enough and fairly intuitive.
Listing 2-18:
function outerFunction(arg) {
var variableInOuterFunction = arg;
function bar() {
console.log(variableInOuterFunction); // Access a variable from the outer scope
}
// Call the local function to demonstrate that it has access to arg
bar();
}
outerFunction('hello closure!'); // logs hello closure!
source: http://index-of.es/Varios/Basarat%20Ali%20Syed%20(auth.)-Beginning%20Node.js-Apress%20(2014).pdf
Please have a look below code to understand closure in more deep:
for(var i=0; i< 5; i++){
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
}, 1000);
}
Here what will be output? 0,1,2,3,4 not that will be 5,5,5,5,5 because of closure
So how it will solve? Answer is below:
for(var i=0; i< 5; i++){
(function(j){ //using IIFE
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(j);
},1000);
})(i);
}
Let me simple explain, when a function created nothing happen until it called so for loop in 1st code called 5 times but not called immediately so when it called i.e after 1 second and also this is asynchronous so before this for loop finished and store value 5 in var i and finally execute setTimeout function five time and print 5,5,5,5,5
Here how it solve using IIFE i.e Immediate Invoking Function Expression
(function(j){ //i is passed here
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(j);
},1000);
})(i); //look here it called immediate that is store i=0 for 1st loop, i=1 for 2nd loop, and so on and print 0,1,2,3,4
For more, please understand execution context to understand closure.
There is one more solution to solve this using let (ES6 feature) but under the hood above function is worked
for(let i=0; i< 5; i++){
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
},1000);
}
Output: 0,1,2,3,4
=> More explanation:
In memory, when for loop execute picture make like below:
Loop 1)
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
},1000);
Loop 2)
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
},1000);
Loop 3)
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
},1000);
Loop 4)
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
},1000);
Loop 5)
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(i);
},1000);
Here i is not executed and then after complete loop, var i stored value 5 in memory but it's scope is always visible in it's children function so when function execute inside setTimeout out five time it prints 5,5,5,5,5
so to resolve this use IIFE as explain above.
Currying : It allows you to partially evaluate a function by only passing in a subset of its arguments. Consider this:
function multiply (x, y) {
return x * y;
}
const double = multiply.bind(null, 2);
const eight = double(4);
eight == 8;
Closure: A closure is nothing more than accessing a variable outside of a function's scope. It is important to remember that a function inside a function or a nested function isn't a closure. Closures are always used when need to access the variables outside the function scope.
function apple(x){
function google(y,z) {
console.log(x*y);
}
google(7,2);
}
apple(3);
// the answer here will be 21
Closure is very easy. We can consider it as follows :
Closure = function + its lexical environment
Consider the following function:
function init() {
var name = “Mozilla”;
}
What will be the closure in the above case ?
Function init() and variables in its lexical environment ie name.
Closure = init() + name
Consider another function :
function init() {
var name = “Mozilla”;
function displayName(){
alert(name);
}
displayName();
}
What will be the closures here ?
Inner function can access variables of outer function. displayName() can access the variable name declared in the parent function, init(). However, the same local variables in displayName() will be used if they exists.
Closure 1 : init function + ( name variable + displayName() function) --> lexical scope
Closure 2 : displayName function + ( name variable ) --> lexical scope
A simple example in Groovy for your reference:
def outer() {
def x = 1
return { -> println(x)} // inner
}
def innerObj = outer()
innerObj() // prints 1
Here is an example illustrating a closure in the Scheme programming language.
First we define a function defining a local variable, not visible outside the function.
; Function using a local variable
(define (function)
(define a 1)
(display a) ; prints 1, when calling (function)
)
(function) ; prints 1
(display a) ; fails: a undefined
Here is the same example, but now the function uses a global variable, defined outside the function.
; Function using a global variable
(define b 2)
(define (function)
(display b) ; prints 2, when calling (function)
)
(function) ; prints 2
(display 2) ; prints 2
And finally, here is an example of a function carrying its own closure:
; Function with closure
(define (outer)
(define c 3)
(define (inner)
(display c))
inner ; outer function returns the inner function as result
)
(define function (outer))
(function) ; prints 3