Asked  7 Months ago    Answers:  5   Viewed   33 times

Why was the arguments.callee.caller property deprecated in JavaScript?

It was added and then deprecated in JavaScript, but it was omitted altogether by ECMAScript. Some browser (Mozilla, IE) have always supported it and don't have any plans on the map to remove support. Others (Safari, Opera) have adopted support for it, but support on older browsers is unreliable.

Is there a good reason to put this valuable functionality in limbo?

(Or alternately, is there a better way to grab a handle on the calling function?)



Early versions of JavaScript did not allow named function expressions, and because of that we could not make a recursive function expression:

 // This snippet will work:
 function factorial(n) {
     return (!(n>1))? 1 : factorial(n-1)*n;

 // But this snippet will not:
 [1,2,3,4,5].map(function(n) {
     return (!(n>1))? 1 : /* what goes here? */ (n-1)*n;

To get around this, arguments.callee was added so we could do:

 [1,2,3,4,5].map(function(n) {
     return (!(n>1))? 1 : arguments.callee(n-1)*n;

However this was actually a really bad solution as this (in conjunction with other arguments, callee, and caller issues) make inlining and tail recursion impossible in the general case (you can achieve it in select cases through tracing etc, but even the best code is sub optimal due to checks that would not otherwise be necessary). The other major issue is that the recursive call will get a different this value, for example:

var global = this;
var sillyFunction = function (recursed) {
    if (!recursed)
        return arguments.callee(true);
    if (this !== global)
        alert("This is: " + this);
        alert("This is the global");

Anyhow, EcmaScript 3 resolved these issues by allowing named function expressions, e.g.:

 [1,2,3,4,5].map(function factorial(n) {
     return (!(n>1))? 1 : factorial(n-1)*n;

This has numerous benefits:

  • The function can be called like any other from inside your code.

  • It does not pollute the namespace.

  • The value of this does not change.

  • It's more performant (accessing the arguments object is expensive).


Just realised that in addition to everything else the question was about arguments.callee.caller, or more specifically Function.caller.

At any point in time you can find the deepest caller of any function on the stack, and as I said above, looking at the call stack has one single major effect: It makes a large number of optimizations impossible, or much much more difficult.

Eg. if we can't guarantee that a function f will not call an unknown function, then it is not possible to inline f. Basically it means that any call site that may have been trivially inlinable accumulates a large number of guards, take:

 function f(a, b, c, d, e) { return a ? b * c : d * e; }

If the js interpreter cannot guarantee that all the provided arguments are numbers at the point that the call is made, it needs to either insert checks for all the arguments before the inlined code, or it cannot inline the function.

Now in this particular case a smart interpreter should be able to rearrange the checks to be more optimal and not check any values that would not be used. However in many cases that's just not possible and therefore it becomes impossible to inline.

Tuesday, June 1, 2021
answered 7 Months ago

The <center> element was deprecated because it defines the presentation of its contents — it does not describe its contents.

One method of centering is to set the margin-left and margin-right properties of the element to auto, and then set the parent element’s text-align property to center. This guarantees that the element will be centered in all modern browsers.

Tuesday, June 1, 2021
answered 7 Months ago

If you scroll down a bit, you see:

Warning! The MutationEvent interface was introduced in DOM Level 2 Events, but has not yet been completely and interoperably implemented across user agents. In addition, there have been critiques that the interface, as designed, introduces a performance and implementation challenge. A new specification is under development with the aim of addressing the use cases that mutation events solves, but in more performant manner. Thus, this specification describes mutation events for reference and completeness of legacy behavior, but deprecates the use of both the MutationEvent interface and the MutationNameEvent interface.

The replacement API is mutation observers, which are fully specified in the DOM Living Standard that supercedes all of the DOM level X silliness.

Tuesday, June 1, 2021
answered 7 Months ago

You are just using The Comma Operator.

This operator only evaluates its operands from left to right, and returns the value from the second one, for example:

(0, 1); // 1
('foo', 'bar'); // 'bar'

In the context of calling a function, the evaluation of the operand will simply get a value, not a reference, this causes that the this value inside the invoked function point to the global object (or it will be undefined in the new ECMAScript 5 Strict Mode).

For example:

var foo = '';

var obj = {
  foo: '',
  method: function () {

obj.method();      // ""
(1, obj.method)(); // ""

As you can see, the first call, which is a direct call, the this value inside the method will properly refer to obj (returning ""), the second call, the evaluation made by the comma operator will make the this value to point to the global object (yielding "").

That pattern has been getting quite popular these days, to make indirect calls to eval, this can be useful under ES5 strict mode, to get a reference to the global object, for example, (imagine you are in a non-browser environment, window is not available):

(function () {
  "use strict";
  var global = (function () { return this || (1,eval)("this"); })();

In the above code, the inner anonymous function will execute within a strict mode code unit, that will result on having the this value as undefined.

The || operator will now take the second operand, the eval call, which is an indirect call, and it will evaluate the code on the global lexical and variable environment.

But personally, in this case, under strict mode I prefer using the Function constructor to get the global object:

(function () {
  "use strict";
  var global = Function('return this')();

Functions that are created with the Function constructor are strict only if they start with a Use Strict Directive, they don't "inherit" the strictness of the current context as Function Declarations or Function Expressions do.

Tuesday, June 1, 2021
answered 7 Months ago

It is defined in ECMAScript 3rd edition. It is available in IE 5.5+ and all in-use versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari.

You can use it safe in the knowledge that it will work.

You should err on the side of caution when using it to check event support. All implementations except older Firefox versions support "eventname" in element as a test for DOM events.

"onclick" in document.body; // -> false in old Fx, true in others
document.body.setAttribute("onclick", "");
typeof(document.body.onclick == "function"); // -> true in Fx
Saturday, June 19, 2021
answered 6 Months ago
Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged :