anonymous-function

I'd like to do something like this: >> foo = @() functionCall1() functionCall2() So that when I said: >> foo() It would execute functionCall1() and then execute functionCall2() . (I feel that I need something like the C , operator ) EDIT: functionCall1 and functionCall2 are not necessarily functions that return values. Trying to do everything via the command line without saving functions in m-files may be a complicated and messy endeavor, but here's one way I came up with... First, make your anonymous functions and put their handles in a cell array : fcn1 = @() ...; fcn2 = @() ...; fcn3 = @()

I would like to do the something along the following: for (var i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { createButton(x, y, function() { alert("button " + i + " pressed"); } } The problem with this is that I always get the final value of i because Javascript's closure is not by-value. So how can I do this with javascript? for(var i = 0; i < 10; i++) { (function(i) { createButton(function() { alert("button " + i + " pressed"); }); })(i); } Note that JSLint doesn't like this pattern. It throws "Don't make functions within a loop.". Live demo: http://jsfiddle.net/simevidas/ZKeXX/ One solution, if you're coding for a

This question already has an answer here: Location of parenthesis for auto-executing anonymous JavaScript functions? 4 answers I know this is silly, but there's any difference between this: (function() { var foo = 'bar'; })(); and this? (function() { var foo = 'bar'; }()); JSLint tells us to Move the invocation into the parens that contain the function , but I see no need to. Edit: The answers are too cool. ~function , the JSHint alternative along with jQuery's preference for (/***/)(); and Crockford's explanation! I thought I was going to just get a "they're the same thing" kind of answer.

function doSomethingWith(param) { document.body.addEventListener( 'scroll', function() { document.write(param); }, false ); // An event that I want to remove later } setTimeout( function() { document.body.removeEventListener('scroll', HANDLER ,false); // What HANDLER should I specify to remove the anonymous handler above? }, 3000 ); doSomethingWith('Test. '); You can't. You have to use a named function or store the reference somehow. var handler; function doSomethingWith(param) { handler = function(){ document.write(param); }; document.body.addEventListener('scroll', handler,false); }

This question already has an answer here: JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example 43 answers I've been trying to assign a function to onclick event of a dynamically created "a" tag in JavaScript. All of the tags are created in a loop as follows: for ( var i = 0; i < 4; i++ ) { var a = document.createElement( "a" ); a.onclick = function( ) { alert( i ) }; document.getElementById( "foo" ).appendChild( a ); } The alerted value for all four links is always "4". Pretty obvious. When googling I came across a post that shows the following code snippet: a.onclick = (function(p, d) {

Why is this in an anonymous function undefined when using javascript in strict mode? I understand why this could make sense, but I couldn't find any concrete answer. Example: (function () { "use strict"; this.foo = "bar"; // *this* is undefined, why? }()); Test in a fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/Pyr5g/1/ Check out the logger (firebug). It's because, until ECMAscript 262 edition 5, there was a big confusion if people who where using the constructor pattern , forgot to use the new keyword. If you forgot to use new when calling a constructor function in ES3, this referenced the global object (