Example #1: Function expression identifier leaks into an enclosing scope

實例1：函數(shù)表達(dá)式標(biāo)示符滲進(jìn)了外圍作用域

var f = function g(){};
typeof g; // "function"

Remember how I mentioned that an identifier of named function expression is not available in an enclosing scope? Well, JScript doesn't agree with specs on this one - g in the above example resolves to a function object. This is a most widely observed discrepancy. It's dangerous in that it inadvertedly pollutes an enclosing scope - a scope that might as well be a global one - with an extra identifier. Such pollution can, of course, be a source of hard-to-track bugs.

我剛才提到過一個有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式的標(biāo)示符不能在外部作用域中被訪問。但是，JScript在這點(diǎn)上和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并不相符，在上面的餓例子中g(shù)卻是一個函數(shù) 對象。這個是一個可以廣泛觀察到的差異。這樣它就用一個多余的標(biāo)示符污染了外圍作用域，這個作用域很有可能是全局作用域，這樣是很危險的。當(dāng)然這個污染可 能是一個很難去處理和跟蹤的bug的根源
Example #2: Named function expression is treated as BOTH - function declaration AND function expression

實例2：有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式被進(jìn)行了雙重處理，函數(shù)表達(dá)式和函數(shù)聲明

typeof g; // "function"
var f = function g(){};

As I explained before, function declarations are parsed foremost any other expressions in a particular execution context. The above example demonstrates how JScript actually treats named function expressions as function declarations. You can see that it parses g before an “actual declaration” takes place.

正如我前面解釋的，在一個特定的執(zhí)行環(huán)境中，函數(shù)聲明是在所有的表達(dá)式之前被解釋。上面的例子說明JScript實際上把有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式作為一個函 數(shù)聲明來對待。我們可以看到他在一個實際的聲明之前就被解釋了。

This brings us to a next example:

在此基礎(chǔ)上我們引入了下面的一個例子。
Example #3: Named function expression creates TWO DISCTINCT function objects!

實例3：有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式創(chuàng)建兩個不同的函數(shù)對象。

var f = function g(){};
f === g; // false

f.expando = 'foo';
g.expando; // undefined

This is where things are getting interesting. Or rather - completely nuts. Here we are seeing the dangers of having to deal with two distinct objects - augmenting one of them obviously does not modify the other one; This could be quite troublesome if you decided to employ, say, caching mechanism and store something in a property of f, then tried accessing it as a property of g, thinking that it is the same object you're working with.

在這里事情變得更加有趣了，或者是完全瘋掉。這里我們看到必須處理兩個不同的對象的危險，當(dāng)擴(kuò)充他們當(dāng)中的一個的時候，另外一個不會相應(yīng)的改變。如 果你打算使用cache機(jī)制并且在f的屬性中存放一些東西，只有有試圖在g的屬性中訪問，你本以為他們指向同一個對象，這樣就會變得非常麻煩

Let's look at something a bit more complex.

讓我們來看一些更復(fù)雜的例子。
Example #4: Function declarations are parsed sequentially and are not affected by conditional blocks

實例4：函數(shù)聲明被順序的解釋，不受條件塊的影響

var f = function g() {
return 1;
};
if (false) {
f = function g(){
return 2;
}
};
g(); // 2

An example like this could cause even harder to track bugs. What happens here is actually quite simple. First, g is being parsed as a function declaration, and since declarations in JScript are independent of conditional blocks, g is being declared as a function from the “dead” if branch - function g(){ return 2 }. Then all of the “regular” expressions are being evaluated and f is being assigned another, newly created function object to. “dead” if branch is never entered when evaluating expressions, so f keeps referencing first function - function g(){ return 1 }. It should be clear by now, that if you're not careful enough, and call g from within f, you'll end up calling a completely unrelated g function object.

像這樣的一個例子可能會使跟蹤bug非常困難。這里發(fā)生的問題卻非常簡單。首先g被解釋為一個函數(shù)聲明，并且既然JScript中的聲明是和條件塊 無關(guān)的，g就作為來自于已經(jīng)無效的if分支中的函數(shù)被聲明function g(){ return 2 }。之后普通的表達(dá)式被求值并且f被賦值為另外一個新創(chuàng)建的函數(shù)對象。當(dāng)執(zhí)行表達(dá)式的時候，由于if條件分支是不會被進(jìn)入的，因此f保持為第一函數(shù)的引用 function g(){ return 1 }?，F(xiàn)在清楚了如果不是很小心，而且在f內(nèi)部調(diào)用g，你最終將調(diào)用一個完全無關(guān)的g函數(shù)對象。

You might be wondering how all this mess with different function objects compares to arguments.callee. Does callee reference f or g? Let's take a look:

你可能在想不從的函數(shù)對象和arguments.callee相比較的結(jié)果會是怎樣呢？callee是引用f還是g？讓我們來看一下

var f = function g(){
return [
arguments.callee == f,
arguments.callee == g
];
};
f(); // [true, false]

As you can see, arguments.callee references same object as f identifier. This is actually good news, as you will see later on.

我們可以看到arguments.callee引用的是和f標(biāo)示符一樣的對象，就像稍后你會看到的，這是個好消息

Looking at JScript deficiencies, it becomes pretty clear what exactly we need to avoid. First, we need to be aware of a leaking identifier (so that it doesn't pollute enclosing scope). Second, we should never reference identifier used as a function name; A troublesome identifier is g from the previous examples. Notice how many ambiguities could have been avoided if we were to forget about g's existance. Always referencing function via f or arguments.callee is the key here. If you use named expression, think of that name as something that's only being used for debugging purposes. And finally, a bonus point is to always clean up an extraneous function created erroneously during NFE declaration.

既然看到了JScript的缺點(diǎn)，我們應(yīng)該避免些什么就非常清楚了。首先，我們要意識到標(biāo)示符的滲出（以使得他不會污染外圍作用域）。第二點(diǎn)，我們 不應(yīng)該引用作為函數(shù)名的標(biāo)示符；從前面的例子可以看出g是一個問題多多的標(biāo)示符。請注意，如果我們忘記g的存在，很多歧義就可以被避免。通常最關(guān)鍵的就是 通過f或者argument.callee來引用函數(shù)。如果你使用有名的表達(dá)式，記住名字只是為了調(diào)試的目的而存在。最后，額外的一點(diǎn)就是要經(jīng)常清理有名 函數(shù)表達(dá)式聲明錯誤創(chuàng)建的附加函數(shù)

I think last point needs a bit of an explanation:

我想最有一點(diǎn)需要一些更多解釋
JScript 內(nèi)存管理

Being familiar with JScript discrepancies, we can now see a potential problem with memory consumption when using these buggy constructs. Let's look at a simple example:

熟悉了JScript和規(guī)范的差別，我們可以看到當(dāng)使用這些有問題的結(jié)構(gòu)的時候，和內(nèi)存消耗相關(guān)的潛在問題

var f = (function(){
if (true) {
return function g(){};
}
return function g(){};
})();

We know that a function returned from within this anonymous invocation - the one that has g identifier - is being assigned to outer f. We also know that named function expressions produce superfluous function object, and that this object is not the same as returned function. The memory issue here is caused by this extraneous g function being literally “trapped” in a closure of returning function. This happens because inner function is declared in the same scope as that pesky g one. Unless we explicitly break reference to g function it will keep consuming memory.

我們發(fā)現(xiàn)從匿名調(diào)用中返回的一個函數(shù)，也就是以g作為標(biāo)示符的函數(shù)，被復(fù)制給外部的f。我們還知道有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式創(chuàng)建了一個多余的函數(shù)對象，并且這 個對象和返回的對象并不是同一個函數(shù)。這里的內(nèi)存問題就是由這個沒用的g函數(shù)在一個返回函數(shù)的閉包中被按照字面上的意思捕獲了。這是因為內(nèi)部函數(shù)是和可惡 的g函數(shù)在同一個作用域內(nèi)聲明的。除非我們顯式的破壞到g函數(shù)的引用，否則他將一直占用內(nèi)存。

var f = (function(){
var f, g;
if (true) {
f = function g(){};
}
else {
f = function g(){};
}
//給g賦值null以使他不再被無關(guān)的函數(shù)引用。
//null `g`, so that it doesn't reference extraneous function any longer

g = null;
return f;
})();

Note that we explicitly declare g as well, so that g = null assignment wouldn't create a global g variable in conforming clients (i.e. non-JScript ones). By nulling reference to g, we allow garbage collector to wipe off this implicitly created function object that g refers to.

注意，我們又顯式的聲明了g，所以g=null賦值將不會給符合規(guī)范的客戶端（例如非JScirpt引擎）創(chuàng)建一個全局變量。通過給g以null的 引用，我們允許垃圾回收來清洗這個被g所引用的，隱式創(chuàng)建的函數(shù)對象。

When taking care of JScript NFE memory leak, I decided to run a simple series of tests to confirm that nulling g actually does free memory.

當(dāng)考慮 JScript的有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式的內(nèi)存泄露問題時，我決定運(yùn)行一系列簡單的測試來證實給g函數(shù)null的引用實際上可以釋放內(nèi)存
測試

The test was simple. It would simply create 10000 functions via named function expressions and store them in an array. I would then wait for about a minute and check how high the memory consumption is. After that I would null-out the reference and repeat the procedure again. Here's a test case I used:

這個測試非常簡單。他將通過有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式創(chuàng)建1000個函數(shù)，并將它們儲存在一個數(shù)組中。我等待了大約一分鐘，并查看內(nèi)存使用有多高。只有我們加 上null引用，重復(fù)上述過程。下面就是我使用的一個簡單的測試用例

function createFn(){
return (function(){
var f;
if (true) {
f = function F(){
return 'standard';
}
}
else if (false) {
f = function F(){
return 'alternative';
}
}
else {
f = function F(){
return 'fallback';
}
}
// var F = null;
return f;
})();
}

var arr = [ ];
for (var i=0; i<10000; i++) {
arr[i] = createFn();
}

Results as seen in Process Explorer on Windows XP SP2 were:

結(jié)果是在Windows XP SP2進(jìn)行的，通過進(jìn)程管理器得到的

IE6:

without `null`: 7.6K -> 20.3K
with `null`: 7.6K -> 18K

IE7:

without `null`: 14K -> 29.7K
with `null`: 14K -> 27K

The results somewhat confirmed my assumptions - explicitly nulling superfluous reference did free memory, but the difference in consumption was relatively insignificant. For 10000 function objects, there would be a ~3MB difference. This is definitely something that should be kept in mind when designing large-scale applications, applications that will run for either long time or on devices with limited memory (such as mobile devices). For any small script, the difference probably doesn't matter.

結(jié)果在一定程度上證實了我的假設(shè)，顯示的給無用的參考以null值確實會釋放內(nèi)存，但是在內(nèi)寸的消耗的區(qū)別上貌似不是很大。對于1000個函數(shù)對 象，大約應(yīng)該有3M左右的差別。但是有一些是明確的，在設(shè)計大規(guī)模的應(yīng)用的時候，應(yīng)用要不就是要運(yùn)行很長時間的或者要在一個內(nèi)存有限的設(shè)備上（例如移動設(shè) 備）。對于任何小的腳本，差別可能不是很重要。

You might think that it's all finally over, but we are not just quite there yet :) There's a tiny little detail that I'd like to mention and that detail is Safari 2.x

你可以認(rèn)為這樣就可以結(jié)束了，但是還沒到結(jié)束的時候。我還要討論一些小的細(xì)節(jié)，而且這些細(xì)節(jié)是在Safari 2.x下的
Safari bug

Even less widely known bug with NFE is present in older versions of Safari; namely, Safari 2.x series. I've seen some claims on the web that Safari 2.x does not support NFE at all. This is not true. Safari does support it, but has bugs in its implementation which you will see shortly.

雖然沒有被人們發(fā)現(xiàn)在早期的Safari版本，也就是Safari 2.x版本中有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式的bug。但是我在web上看到一些聲稱Safari 2.x根本不支持有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式。這不是真的。Safari的確支持有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式，但是稍后你將看到在它的實現(xiàn)中是存在bug的

When encountering function expression in a certain context, Safari 2.x fails to parse the program entirely. It doesn't throw any errors (such as SyntaxError ones). It simply bails out:

在某些執(zhí)行環(huán)境中遇到函數(shù)表達(dá)式的時候，Safari 2.x 將解釋程序整體失敗。它不拋出任何的錯誤（例如SyntaxError）。展示如下

(function f(){})(); // <== 有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式 NFE
alert(1); //因為前面的表達(dá)式是的整個程序失敗，本行將無法達(dá)到， this line is never reached, since previous expression fails the entire program

After fiddling with various test cases, I came to conclusion that Safari 2.x fails to parse named function expressions, if those are not part of assignment expressions. Some examples of assignment expressions are:

在用一些測試用例測試之后，我總結(jié)出，如果有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式不是賦值表達(dá)式的一部分，Safari解釋有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式將失敗。一些賦值表達(dá)式的例子如 下

// 變量聲明part of variable declaration
var f = 1;

//簡單的賦值 part of simple assignment
f = 2, g = 3;

// 返回語句part of return statement
(function(){
return (f = 2);
})();

This means that putting named function expression into an assignment makes Safari “happy”:

這就意味著把有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式放到賦值表達(dá)式中會讓 Safari非?！伴_心”

(function f(){}); // fails 失敗

var f = function f(){}; // works 成功

(function(){
return function f(){}; // fails 失敗
})();

(function(){
return (f = function f(){}); // works 成功
})();

setTimeout(function f(){ }, 100); // fails

It also means that we can't use such common pattern as returning named function expression without an assignment:

這也意味著我們不能使用這種普通的模式而沒有賦值表達(dá)式作為返回有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式


//要取代這種Safari2.x不兼容的情況 Instead of this non-Safari-2x-compatible syntax:
(function(){
if (featureTest) {
return function f(){};
}
return function f(){};
})();

// 我們應(yīng)該使用這種稍微冗長的替代方法we should use this slightly more verbose alternative:
(function(){
var f;
if (featureTest) {
f = function f(){};
}
else {
f = function f(){};
}
return f;
})();

// 或者另外一種變形or another variation of it:
(function(){
var f;
if (featureTest) {
return (f = function f(){});
}
return (f = function f(){});
})();

/*
Unfortunately, by doing so, we introduce an extra reference to a function
which gets trapped in a closure of returning function. To prevent extra memory usage,
we can assign all named function expressions to one single variable.
不幸的是 這樣做我們引入了對函數(shù)的另外一個引用
他將被包含在返回函數(shù)的閉包中
為了防止多于的內(nèi)存使用，我們可以吧所有的有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式賦值給一個單獨(dú)的變量
*/

var __temp;

(function(){
if (featureTest) {
return (__temp = function f(){});
}
return (__temp = function f(){});
})();

...

(function(){
if (featureTest2) {
return (__temp = function g(){});
}
return (__temp = function g(){});
})();

/*
Note that subsequent assignments destroy previous references,
preventing any excessive memory usage.
注釋：后面的賦值銷毀了前面的引用，防止任何過多的內(nèi)存使用
*/

If Safari 2.x compatibility is important, we need to make sure “incompatible” constructs do not even appear in the source. This is of course quite irritating, but is definitely possible to achieve, especially when knowing the root of the problem.

如果Safari2.x的兼容性非常重要。我們需要保證不兼容的結(jié)構(gòu)不再代碼中出現(xiàn)。這當(dāng)然是非常氣人的，但是他確實明確的可以做到的，尤其是當(dāng)我 們知道問題的根源。

It's also worth mentioning that declaring a function as NFE in Safari 2.x exhibits another minor glitch, where function representation does not contain function identifier:

還值得一提的是在Safari中聲明一個函數(shù)是有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式的時候存在另外一個小的問題，這是函數(shù)表示法不含有函數(shù)標(biāo)示符（估計是 toString的問題）

var f = function g(){};

// Notice how function representation is lacking `g` identifier
String(g); // function () { }

This is not really a big deal. As I have already mentioned before, function decompilation is something that should not be relied upon anyway.

這不是個很大的問題。因為之前我已經(jīng)說過，函數(shù)反編譯在任何情況下都是不可信賴的。
解決方案

var fn = (function(){

//聲明一個變量，來給他賦值函數(shù)對象 declare a variable to assign function object to
var f;

// 條件的創(chuàng)建一個有名函數(shù) conditionally create a named function
// 并把它的引用賦值給f and assign its reference to `f`
if (true) {
f = function F(){ }
}
else if (false) {
f = function F(){ }
}
else {
f = function F(){ }
}

//給一個和函數(shù)名相關(guān)的變量以null值 Assign `null` to a variable corresponding to a function name
//這可以使得函數(shù)對象（通過標(biāo)示符的引用）可以被垃圾收集所得到This marks the function object (referred to by that identifier)
// available for garbage collection
var F = null;

//返回一個條件定義的函數(shù) return a conditionally defined function
return f;
})();

Finally, here's how we would apply this “techinque” in real life, when writing something like a cross-browser addEvent function:

最后，當(dāng)我么一個類似于跨瀏覽器addEvent函數(shù)的類似函數(shù)時，下面就是我們?nèi)绾卧谡鎸嵉膽?yīng)用中使用這個技術(shù)


// 1) 用一個分離的作用域封裝聲明 enclose declaration with a separate scope
var addEvent = (function(){

var docEl = document.documentElement;

// 2)聲明一個變量，用來賦值為函數(shù) declare a variable to assign function to
var fn;

if (docEl.addEventListener) {

// 3) 確保給函數(shù)一個描述的標(biāo)示符 make sure to give function a descriptive identifier
fn = function addEvent(element, eventName, callback) {
element.addEventListener(eventName, callback, false);
}
}
else if (docEl.attachEvent) {
fn = function addEvent(element, eventName, callback) {
element.attachEvent('on' + eventName, callback);
}
}
else {
fn = function addEvent(element, eventName, callback) {
element['on' + eventName] = callback;
}
}

// 4)清除通過JScript創(chuàng)建的addEvent函數(shù) clean up `addEvent` function created by JScript
// 保證在賦值之前加上varmake sure to either prepend assignment with `var`,
// 或者在函數(shù)頂端聲明 addEvent or declare `addEvent` at the top of the function
var addEvent = null;

// 5)最后通過fn返回函數(shù)的引用 finally return function referenced by `fn`
return fn;
})();
可替代的解決方案

It's worth mentioning that there actually exist alternative ways of
having descriptive names in call stacks. Ways that don't require one to
use named function expressions. First of all, it is often possible to
define function via declaration, rather than via expression. This option
is only viable when you don't need to create more than one function:

需要說明，實際上純在一個種使得在調(diào)用棧上顯示描述名稱（函數(shù)名）的替代方法。一個不需要使用有名函數(shù)表達(dá)式的方法。首先，通?？梢允褂寐暶鞫皇?
使用表達(dá)式來定義函數(shù)。這種選擇通常只是適應(yīng)于你不需要創(chuàng)建多個函數(shù)的情況。

var hasClassName = (function(){

// 定義一些私有變量define some private variables
var cache = { };

//使用函數(shù)定義 use function declaration
function hasClassName(element, className) {
var _className = '(?:^|\\s+)' + className + '(?:\\s+|$)';
var re = cache[_className] || (cache[_className] = new RegExp(_className));
return re.test(element.className);
}

// 返回函數(shù)return function
return hasClassName;
})();


This obviously wouldn't work when forking function definitions.
Nevertheless, there's an interesting pattern that I first seen used by
Tobie Langel. The way it works is by defining all functions
upfront using function declarations, but giving them slightly different
identifiers:

這種方法顯然對于多路的函數(shù)定義不適用。但是，有一個有趣的方法，這個方法我第一次在看到Tobie
Langel.在使用。這個用函數(shù)聲明定義所有的函數(shù)，但是給這個函數(shù)聲明以稍微不同的標(biāo)示符。

var addEvent = (function(){

var docEl = document.documentElement;

function addEventListener(){
/* ... */
}
function attachEvent(){
/* ... */
}
function addEventAsProperty(){
/* ... */
}

if (typeof docEl.addEventListener != 'undefined') {
return addEventListener;
}
elseif (typeof docEl.attachEvent != 'undefined') {
return attachEvent;
}
return addEventAsProperty;
})();


While it's an elegant approach, it has its own drawbacks. First, by
using different identifiers, you loose naming consistency. Whether it's
good or bad thing is not very clear. Some might prefer to have identical
names, while others wouldn't mind varying ones; after all, different
names can often “speak” about implementation used. For example, seeing
“attachEvent” in debugger, would let you know that it is an attachEvent-based implementation of addEvent. On the other hand,
implementation-related name might not be meaningful at all. If you're
providing an API and name “inner” functions in such way, the user of API
could easily get lost in all of these implementation details.

雖然這是一個比較優(yōu)雅的方法，但是他也有自己的缺陷。首先，通過使用不同的標(biāo)示符，你失去的命名的一致性。這是件好的事情還是件壞的事情還不好說。
有些人希望使用一支的命名，有些人則不會介意改變名字；畢竟，不同的名字通常代表不同的實現(xiàn)。例如，在調(diào)試器中看到“attachEvent”，你就可以
知道是addEvent基于attentEvent的一個實現(xiàn)。另外一方面，和實現(xiàn)相關(guān)的名字可能根本沒有什意義。如果你提供一個api并用如此方法命名
內(nèi)部的函數(shù)，api的使用者可能會被這些實現(xiàn)細(xì)節(jié)搞糊涂。

A solution to this problem might be to employ different naming
convention. Just be careful not to introduce extra verbosity. Some
alternatives that come to mind are:

解決這個問題的一個方法是使用不同的命名規(guī)則。但是注意不要飲用過多的冗余。下面列出了一些替代的命名方法

`addEvent`, `altAddEvent` and `fallbackAddEvent`
// or
`addEvent`, `addEvent2`, `addEvent3`
// or
`addEvent_addEventListener`, `addEvent_attachEvent`, `addEvent_asProperty`


Another minor issue with this pattern is increased memory
consumption. By defining all of the function variations upfront, you
implicitly create N-1 unused functions. As you can see, if attachEvent is found in document.documentElement,
then neither addEventListener nor addEventAsProperty are ever really used. Yet, they
already consume memory; memory which is never deallocated for the same
reason as with JScript's buggy named expressions - both functions are
“trapped” in a closure of returning one.

這種模式的另外一個問題就是增加了內(nèi)存的開銷。通過定義所有上面的函數(shù)變種，你隱含的創(chuàng)建了N-1個函數(shù)。你可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果attachEvent
在document.documentElement中發(fā)現(xiàn)，那么addEventListener和addEventAsProperty都沒有被實際
用到。但是他們已經(jīng)消耗的內(nèi)存；和Jscript有名表達(dá)式bug的原因一樣的內(nèi)存沒有被釋放，在返回一個函數(shù)的同時，兩個函數(shù)被‘trapped‘在閉
包中。

This increased consumption is of course hardly an issue. If a library
such as Prototype.js was to use this pattern, there would be not more
than 100-200 extra function objects created. As long as functions are
not created in such way repeatedly (at runtime) but only once (at load
time), you probably shouldn't worry about it.

這個遞增的內(nèi)存使用顯然是個嚴(yán)重的問題。如果和Prototype.js類似的庫需要使用這種模式，將有另外的100-200個多于的函數(shù)對象被創(chuàng)
建。如果函數(shù)沒有被重復(fù)地（運(yùn)行時）用這種方式創(chuàng)建，只是在加載時被創(chuàng)建一次，你可能就不用擔(dān)心這個問題。