You could use the valueOf hack:
this.length = {
'valueOf': function (){
return A.length;
},
'toString': function (){
return A.length;
}
};
Now you can access the length as x.length. (Although, maybe it's just me, but to me, something about this method feels very roundabout, and it's easy enough to go with a sturdier solution and, for example, update the length property after every modification.)
You could use the valueOf hack:
this.length = {
'valueOf': function (){
return A.length;
},
'toString': function (){
return A.length;
}
};
Now you can access the length as x.length. (Although, maybe it's just me, but to me, something about this method feels very roundabout, and it's easy enough to go with a sturdier solution and, for example, update the length property after every modification.)
If you want A to stay 'private', you need to update the public length property on every operation which modifies A's length so that you don't need a method which checks when asked. I would do so via 'private' method.
Code:
var a = function(){
var instance, A, updateLength;
instance = this;
A = [];
this.length = 0;
updateLength = function()
{
instance.length = A.length;
}
this.add = function(x){
A.push(x);
updateLength();
};
this.remove = function(){
var popped = A.pop();
updateLength();
return popped;
};
};
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/JAAulde/VT4bb/
Which JavaScript version should I target in 2026?
What is the best free editor for JavaScript?
How do I run JavaScript locally vs in the browser?
It turns out the length property on functions is configurable, which means you can use .defineProperty to change the value of length on a function. Example:
function hi() {}
hi.length === 0; // Expected
Object.defineProperty(hi, "length", { value: 5 })
hi.length === 5; // Intriguing
This works in the latest version of Chrome and Firefox, but it does not work in Safari (v9.1.1).
For now, here's the best solution I could think of.
makeFunc = function (length, fn) {
switch (length) {
case 0 : return function () { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 1 : return function (a) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 2 : return function (a,b) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 3 : return function (a,b,c) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 4 : return function (a,b,c,d) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 5 : return function (a,b,c,d,e) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 6 : return function (a,b,c,d,e,f) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 7 : return function (a,b,c,d,e,f,g) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 8 : return function (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
case 9 : return function (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
default : return function (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j) { return fn.apply(this, arguments); };
}
};
Example usage:
var realFn = function () {
return "blah";
};
lengthSix = makeFunc(6, realFn);
lengthSix.length; // 6
lengthSix(); // "blah"
Personally, I always cringe whenever I use copy and paste when programming, so I'd be very happy to hear of any better options.
Update
I thought of a method which could work for any arbitrary size, unlike the example above which is limited by how many times you want to copy-and-paste. Essentially, it dynamically creates a function (using new Function) which will return a function of the right size which then just proxies through to whatever function you pass to it. Yeah that does hurt your head. Anyway, I thought I'd benchmark it against the above...
http://jsperf.com/functions-with-custom-length (you can see the 'evil' code there too).
The evil method is many hundreds of times slower than the hacky copypasta method, so there you go.
There's a lot of discussion in the esdiscuss thread "Set length property". This was a hotly debated issue, so it's not surprising that you do not necessarily agree with the resolution.
There is a tremendous amount of arguing about this in esdiscuss. Ultimately, the argument that prevailed (as evidenced by the fact that ES2015's Sets have size and not length) was summarized in a post by David Bruant:
...for me 'length' refers to a measurement with something like a ruler. You start at 0 and see up to where it goes. This is very accurate for an array which is an indexed set (starting at 0 and growing) and for arrays as considered in C (continuous sequence of bytes) which ECMAScript arrays seem inspired of. This is probably less relevant for unordered collections such as sets which I'd tend to consider as a messy bag.
And further discussed in a post by Dean Landolt:
Just wanted to jump in and say non-writable
lengthis consistent with String behavior as well, but David makes a good point aboutlengthimplying metric topology. David's suggestion ofcountis nice. ISTM what we're talking about iscardinality, but no need to get too silly w/ precision. Thoughsizeis just fine with me, and has plenty of prior art.
While apsillers' Jan 27, 2016 answer adds great links, a code example is missing. The size of a set is a read-only getter while that's not the case for arrays which allow modifying the length to truncate the array.
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4]
arr.length = 2
console.log("modified length array", arr) // [1, 2]
let mySet = new Set([1, 2, 3, 4])
mySet.length = 2
mySet.size = 2
console.log("modified length set", [...mySet]) // [1, 2, 3, 4]
let str = "1234"
str.length = 2
console.log("modified length string", str) // "1234"