Skip to main content
Stack Overflow
  1. About
  2. For Teams

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

Required fields*

JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example

var funcs = [];
// let's create 3 functions
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
 // and store them in funcs
 funcs[i] = function() {
 // each should log its value.
 console.log("My value:", i);
 };
}
for (var j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
 // and now let's run each one to see
 funcs[j]();
}

It outputs this:

My value: 3
My value: 3
My value: 3

Whereas I'd like it to output:

My value: 0
My value: 1
My value: 2


The same problem occurs when the delay in running the function is caused by using event listeners:

var buttons = document.getElementsByTagName("button");
// let's create 3 functions
for (var i = 0; i < buttons.length; i++) {
 // as event listeners
 buttons[i].addEventListener("click", function() {
 // each should log its value.
 console.log("My value:", i);
 });
}
<button>0</button>
<br />
<button>1</button>
<br />
<button>2</button>

... or asynchronous code, e.g. using Promises:

// Some async wait function
const wait = (ms) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
 // Log `i` as soon as each promise resolves.
 wait(i * 100).then(() => console.log(i));
}

It is also apparent in for in and for of loops:

const arr = [1,2,3];
const fns = [];
for (var i in arr){
 fns.push(() => console.log("index:", i));
}
for (var v of arr){
 fns.push(() => console.log("value:", v));
}
for (const n of arr) {
 var obj = { number: n }; // or new MyLibObject({ ... })
 fns.push(() => console.log("n:", n, "|", "obj:", JSON.stringify(obj)));
}
for(var f of fns){
 f();
}

What’s the solution to this basic problem?

Answer*

Draft saved
Draft discarded
Cancel
6
  • This is what I do these days too, I also like lo-dash/underscore's _.partial Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 5:18
  • 21
    .bind() will be largely obsolete with ECMAScript 6 features. Besides, this actually creates two functions per iteration. First the anonymous, then the one generated by .bind(). Better use would be to create it outside the loop, then .bind() it inside. Commented Jun 28, 2015 at 3:29
  • 6
    @squint @mekdev - You both are correct. My initial example was written quickly to demonstrate how bind is used. I've added another example per your suggestions. Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 16:23
  • 5
    I think instead of wasting computation over two O(n) loops, just do for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) { log.call(this, i); } Commented Sep 11, 2015 at 12:14
  • 1
    .bind() does what the accepted answer suggests PLUS fiddles with this. Commented Jan 8, 2017 at 5:55

lang-js

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /