Simple “Class” Instantiation

Question

From John Resig blog:

// makeClass - By John Resig (MIT Licensed)
function makeClass(){
  return function(args){
    if ( this instanceof arguments.callee ) {
      if ( typeof this.init == "function" )
        this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );
    } else
      return new arguments.callee( arguments );
  };
}

especially this line this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );

What's the difference between args and arguments? Can args.callee ever be false?

Answer 1

You write that the existing answers don't have enough detail, but even after reading your specific questions, I'm not completely sure exactly which aspects of the code are throwing you for a loop — it has a number of tricky parts — so I apologize in advance if this answer goes overboard with details about things you've already understood!

Since makeClass is always meant to be called the same way, it's a bit easier to reason about it if we remove one level of indirection. This:

var MyClass = makeClass();

is equivalent to this:

function MyClass(args)
{
  if ( this instanceof arguments.callee )
  {
    if ( typeof this.init == "function" )
      this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );
  }
  else
    return new arguments.callee( arguments );
}

Since we're no longer dealing with an anonymous function, we no longer need the arguments.callee notation: it necessarily refers to MyClass, so we can replace all instances of it with MyClass, giving this:

function MyClass(args)
{
  if ( this instanceof MyClass )
  {
    if ( typeof this.init == "function" )
      this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );
  }
  else
    return new MyClass( arguments );
}

where args is an identifier for MyClass's first argument, and arguments, as always, is an array-like object containing all of MyClass's arguments.

The line you're asking about is only reached if the "class" has a function named init in its prototype (which will be the "constructor"), so let's give it one:

MyClass.prototype.init =
  function (prop)
  {
    this.prop = prop;
  };

Once we've done that, consider this:

var myInstance1 = new MyClass('value');

Inside the call to MyClass, this will refer to the object being constructed, so this instanceof MyClass will be true. And typeof this.init == "function" will be true, because we made MyClass.prototype.init be a function. So we reach this line:

this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );

Here args is equal to 'value' (the first argument), so it's a string, so it doesn't have the callee property; so args.callee is undefined, which in a Boolean context means it's false, so args.callee ? args : arguments is equivalent to arguments. Therefore, the above line is equivalent to this:

this.init.apply(this, arguments);

which is equivalent to this:

this.init('value');

(if you don't already know how apply works, and how it differs from call, see https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/apply).

Does that make sense so far?

The other case to consider is this:

var myInstance2 = MyClass('value');

Inside the call to MyClass, this will refer to the global object (typically window), so this instanceof MyClass will be false, so we reach this line:

return new MyClass( arguments );

where arguments is an array-like object containing a single element: 'value'. Note that this is not the same as new MyClass('value').

Terminological note: So the call to MyClass('value') results in a second call to MyClass, this time with new. I'm going to call the first call (without new) the "outer call", and the second call (with new) the "inner call". Hopefully that's intuitive.

Inside the inner call to MyClass, args now refers to the outer call's arguments object: instead of args being 'value', it's now an array-like object containing 'value'. And instead of args.callee being undefined, it now refers to MyClass, so args.callee ? args : arguments is equivalent to args. So the inner call to MyClass is calling this.init.apply(this, args), which is equivalent to this.init('value').

So the test on args.callee is intended to distinguish an inner call (MyClass('value') → new MyClass(arguments)) from a normal direct call (new MyClass('value')). Ideally we could eliminate that test by replacing this line:

return new MyClass( arguments );

with something hypothetical that looked like this:

return new MyClass.apply( itself, arguments );

but JavaScript doesn't allow that notation (nor any equivalent notation).

You can see, by the way, that there are a few small problems with Resig's code:

• If we define a constructor MyClass.prototype.init, and then we instantiate the "class" by writing var myInstance3 = new MyClass();, then args will be undefined inside the call to MyClass, so the test on args.callee will raise an error. I think this is simply a bug on Resig's part; at any rate, it's easily fixed by testing on args && args.callee instead.
• If our constructor's first argument happens to actually have a property named callee, then the test on args.callee will produce a false positive, and the wrong arguments will be passed into the constructor. This means that, for example, we cannot design the constructor to take an arguments object as its first argument. But this issue seems difficult to work around, and it's probably not worth worrying about.