declaring a variable twice in IIFEScope of Default function parameters in javascriptWhy would a JavaScript variable start with a dollar sign?How do you use a variable in a regular expression?What is the scope of variables in JavaScript?How do you check if a variable is an array in JavaScript?How do I declare a namespace in JavaScript?How to determine if variable is 'undefined' or 'null'?Check if a variable is a string in JavaScriptRead environment variables in Node.jsJavaScript check if variable exists (is defined/initialized)Is there a standard function to check for null, undefined, or blank variables in JavaScript?

Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?

Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)

How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?

Work Breakdown with Tikz

How is this relation reflexive?

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?

Can a German sentence have two subjects?

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

New order #4: World

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?

Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?

whey we use polarized capacitor?

How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)

Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?

How can I hide my bitcoin transactions to protect anonymity from others?

How long does it take to type this?

What would the Romans have called "sorcery"?

What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files

Should I join office cleaning event for free?

A Journey Through Space and Time

Prevent a directory in /tmp from being deleted



declaring a variable twice in IIFE


Scope of Default function parameters in javascriptWhy would a JavaScript variable start with a dollar sign?How do you use a variable in a regular expression?What is the scope of variables in JavaScript?How do you check if a variable is an array in JavaScript?How do I declare a namespace in JavaScript?How to determine if variable is 'undefined' or 'null'?Check if a variable is a string in JavaScriptRead environment variables in Node.jsJavaScript check if variable exists (is defined/initialized)Is there a standard function to check for null, undefined, or blank variables in JavaScript?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








13















I came through this fun quiz on the internet.



console.log((function(x, f = (() => x))
var x;
var y = x;
x = 2;
return [x, y, f()]
)(1))


and the choices were:



  1. [2,1,1]


  2. [2, undefined, 1]


  3. [2, 1, 2]


  4. [2, undefined, 2]


I picked solution 2 TBH, basing that on that x has been redefined, y was declared and defined with no value, and that f has a different scope hence getting the global x memory spot than function x memory spot.



However, I tried it in jsbin.com



and I found it was solution 1, while I was not sure why that happened I messed with the function body and I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3 which makes sense as x value changed and hence it showed x and f as 2 and y as 1 which was declared globally.



but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    I find the best way to figure these things out is to step through them line by line with a debugger, and/or print out the values after each line.

    – Heretic Monkey
    10 hours ago











  • var x; doesn't define a new variable within the function scope, where var x = somevalue; would

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @alex it does. ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms I see, would have expected x to be undefined then, implicitly copy the function formal value looks really odd to me.

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 3





    I'm glad this question was asked :)

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago

















13















I came through this fun quiz on the internet.



console.log((function(x, f = (() => x))
var x;
var y = x;
x = 2;
return [x, y, f()]
)(1))


and the choices were:



  1. [2,1,1]


  2. [2, undefined, 1]


  3. [2, 1, 2]


  4. [2, undefined, 2]


I picked solution 2 TBH, basing that on that x has been redefined, y was declared and defined with no value, and that f has a different scope hence getting the global x memory spot than function x memory spot.



However, I tried it in jsbin.com



and I found it was solution 1, while I was not sure why that happened I messed with the function body and I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3 which makes sense as x value changed and hence it showed x and f as 2 and y as 1 which was declared globally.



but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    I find the best way to figure these things out is to step through them line by line with a debugger, and/or print out the values after each line.

    – Heretic Monkey
    10 hours ago











  • var x; doesn't define a new variable within the function scope, where var x = somevalue; would

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @alex it does. ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms I see, would have expected x to be undefined then, implicitly copy the function formal value looks really odd to me.

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 3





    I'm glad this question was asked :)

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago













13












13








13


5






I came through this fun quiz on the internet.



console.log((function(x, f = (() => x))
var x;
var y = x;
x = 2;
return [x, y, f()]
)(1))


and the choices were:



  1. [2,1,1]


  2. [2, undefined, 1]


  3. [2, 1, 2]


  4. [2, undefined, 2]


I picked solution 2 TBH, basing that on that x has been redefined, y was declared and defined with no value, and that f has a different scope hence getting the global x memory spot than function x memory spot.



However, I tried it in jsbin.com



and I found it was solution 1, while I was not sure why that happened I messed with the function body and I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3 which makes sense as x value changed and hence it showed x and f as 2 and y as 1 which was declared globally.



but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.










share|improve this question














I came through this fun quiz on the internet.



console.log((function(x, f = (() => x))
var x;
var y = x;
x = 2;
return [x, y, f()]
)(1))


and the choices were:



  1. [2,1,1]


  2. [2, undefined, 1]


  3. [2, 1, 2]


  4. [2, undefined, 2]


I picked solution 2 TBH, basing that on that x has been redefined, y was declared and defined with no value, and that f has a different scope hence getting the global x memory spot than function x memory spot.



However, I tried it in jsbin.com



and I found it was solution 1, while I was not sure why that happened I messed with the function body and I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3 which makes sense as x value changed and hence it showed x and f as 2 and y as 1 which was declared globally.



but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.







javascript iife






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 10 hours ago









Hamza MohamedHamza Mohamed

679423




679423







  • 1





    I find the best way to figure these things out is to step through them line by line with a debugger, and/or print out the values after each line.

    – Heretic Monkey
    10 hours ago











  • var x; doesn't define a new variable within the function scope, where var x = somevalue; would

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @alex it does. ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms I see, would have expected x to be undefined then, implicitly copy the function formal value looks really odd to me.

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 3





    I'm glad this question was asked :)

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago












  • 1





    I find the best way to figure these things out is to step through them line by line with a debugger, and/or print out the values after each line.

    – Heretic Monkey
    10 hours ago











  • var x; doesn't define a new variable within the function scope, where var x = somevalue; would

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @alex it does. ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms I see, would have expected x to be undefined then, implicitly copy the function formal value looks really odd to me.

    – Alex
    10 hours ago






  • 3





    I'm glad this question was asked :)

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago







1




1





I find the best way to figure these things out is to step through them line by line with a debugger, and/or print out the values after each line.

– Heretic Monkey
10 hours ago





I find the best way to figure these things out is to step through them line by line with a debugger, and/or print out the values after each line.

– Heretic Monkey
10 hours ago













var x; doesn't define a new variable within the function scope, where var x = somevalue; would

– Alex
10 hours ago





var x; doesn't define a new variable within the function scope, where var x = somevalue; would

– Alex
10 hours ago




2




2





@alex it does. ...

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago





@alex it does. ...

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago













@JonasWilms I see, would have expected x to be undefined then, implicitly copy the function formal value looks really odd to me.

– Alex
10 hours ago





@JonasWilms I see, would have expected x to be undefined then, implicitly copy the function formal value looks really odd to me.

– Alex
10 hours ago




3




3





I'm glad this question was asked :)

– Pointy
10 hours ago





I'm glad this question was asked :)

– Pointy
10 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















13















but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.




It's not just you. This is a deep, dark part of the specification. :-)



The key here is that there are two xs. Yes, really. There's the parameter x, and there's the variable x.



A parameter list containing expressions (like f's default value) has its own scope separate from the function body's scope. But prior to parameter lists possibly having expressions, having var x within a function with an x parameter had no effect (x was still the parameter, with the parameter's value). So to preserve that, when there's a parameter list with expressions in it, a separate variable is created and the value of the parameter is copied to the variable at the beginning of the function body. Which is the reason for this seemingly-odd (no, not just seemingly) odd behavior. (If you're the kind who likes to dive into the spec, this copying is Step 28 of FunctionDeclarationInstantiation.)



Since f's default value, () => x, is created within the parameter list scope, it refers to the parameter x, not the var.



So the first solution, [2, 1, 1] is correct, because:




  • 2 was assigned to the var x in the function body. So at the end of the function, the var x is 2.


  • 1 was assigned to y from the var x before x got the value 2, so at the end of the function, y is 1.

  • The parameter x's value has never changed, so f() results in 1 at the end of the function

It's as though the code were written like this instead (I've removed unnecessary parens and added missing semicolons):






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));






...I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3...




#3 is [2, 1, 2]. That's correct, because when you remove the var x from the function, there's only one x, the parameter (inherited by the function body from the parmeter list). So assigning 2 to x changes the parameter's value, which f returns.



Taking the earier example with param_x and var_x, here's what it looks like if you remove the var x; from it:






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));






Here's an annotated description of the original code (with the extraneous parentheses removed and missing semicolons added):



// /---- the parameter "x"
// v vvvvvvvvvvv--- the parameter "f" with a default value
console.log(function(x, f = () => x)
var x; // <=== the *variable* x, which gets its initial value from the
// parameter x
var y = x; // <=== sets y to 1 (x's current value)
x = 2; // <=== changes the *variable* x's value to 2
// +---------- 2, because this is the *variable* x
// (1));



Final note regarding your title:




declaring a variable twice in IIFE




The variable is only declared once. The other thing is a parameter, not a variable. The distinction is rarely important...this being one of those rare times. :-)






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago











  • Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago



















1














The tricky part of that code is that the => function is created as part of a default parameter value expression. In parameter default value expressions, the scope includes the parameters declared to the left, which in this case includes the parameter x. Thus for that reason the x in the => function is in fact the first parameter.



The function is called with just one parameter, 1, so when the => function is called that's what it returns, giving [2, 1, 1].



The var x declaration, as Mr Crowder points out, has the (somewhat weird, at least to me) effect of making a new x in the function scope, into which is copied the value of the parameter x. Without it, there's only the one (the parameter).






share|improve this answer

























  • That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55560027%2fdeclaring-a-variable-twice-in-iife%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13















but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.




It's not just you. This is a deep, dark part of the specification. :-)



The key here is that there are two xs. Yes, really. There's the parameter x, and there's the variable x.



A parameter list containing expressions (like f's default value) has its own scope separate from the function body's scope. But prior to parameter lists possibly having expressions, having var x within a function with an x parameter had no effect (x was still the parameter, with the parameter's value). So to preserve that, when there's a parameter list with expressions in it, a separate variable is created and the value of the parameter is copied to the variable at the beginning of the function body. Which is the reason for this seemingly-odd (no, not just seemingly) odd behavior. (If you're the kind who likes to dive into the spec, this copying is Step 28 of FunctionDeclarationInstantiation.)



Since f's default value, () => x, is created within the parameter list scope, it refers to the parameter x, not the var.



So the first solution, [2, 1, 1] is correct, because:




  • 2 was assigned to the var x in the function body. So at the end of the function, the var x is 2.


  • 1 was assigned to y from the var x before x got the value 2, so at the end of the function, y is 1.

  • The parameter x's value has never changed, so f() results in 1 at the end of the function

It's as though the code were written like this instead (I've removed unnecessary parens and added missing semicolons):






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));






...I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3...




#3 is [2, 1, 2]. That's correct, because when you remove the var x from the function, there's only one x, the parameter (inherited by the function body from the parmeter list). So assigning 2 to x changes the parameter's value, which f returns.



Taking the earier example with param_x and var_x, here's what it looks like if you remove the var x; from it:






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));






Here's an annotated description of the original code (with the extraneous parentheses removed and missing semicolons added):



// /---- the parameter "x"
// v vvvvvvvvvvv--- the parameter "f" with a default value
console.log(function(x, f = () => x)
var x; // <=== the *variable* x, which gets its initial value from the
// parameter x
var y = x; // <=== sets y to 1 (x's current value)
x = 2; // <=== changes the *variable* x's value to 2
// +---------- 2, because this is the *variable* x
// (1));



Final note regarding your title:




declaring a variable twice in IIFE




The variable is only declared once. The other thing is a parameter, not a variable. The distinction is rarely important...this being one of those rare times. :-)






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago











  • Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago
















13















but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.




It's not just you. This is a deep, dark part of the specification. :-)



The key here is that there are two xs. Yes, really. There's the parameter x, and there's the variable x.



A parameter list containing expressions (like f's default value) has its own scope separate from the function body's scope. But prior to parameter lists possibly having expressions, having var x within a function with an x parameter had no effect (x was still the parameter, with the parameter's value). So to preserve that, when there's a parameter list with expressions in it, a separate variable is created and the value of the parameter is copied to the variable at the beginning of the function body. Which is the reason for this seemingly-odd (no, not just seemingly) odd behavior. (If you're the kind who likes to dive into the spec, this copying is Step 28 of FunctionDeclarationInstantiation.)



Since f's default value, () => x, is created within the parameter list scope, it refers to the parameter x, not the var.



So the first solution, [2, 1, 1] is correct, because:




  • 2 was assigned to the var x in the function body. So at the end of the function, the var x is 2.


  • 1 was assigned to y from the var x before x got the value 2, so at the end of the function, y is 1.

  • The parameter x's value has never changed, so f() results in 1 at the end of the function

It's as though the code were written like this instead (I've removed unnecessary parens and added missing semicolons):






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));






...I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3...




#3 is [2, 1, 2]. That's correct, because when you remove the var x from the function, there's only one x, the parameter (inherited by the function body from the parmeter list). So assigning 2 to x changes the parameter's value, which f returns.



Taking the earier example with param_x and var_x, here's what it looks like if you remove the var x; from it:






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));






Here's an annotated description of the original code (with the extraneous parentheses removed and missing semicolons added):



// /---- the parameter "x"
// v vvvvvvvvvvv--- the parameter "f" with a default value
console.log(function(x, f = () => x)
var x; // <=== the *variable* x, which gets its initial value from the
// parameter x
var y = x; // <=== sets y to 1 (x's current value)
x = 2; // <=== changes the *variable* x's value to 2
// +---------- 2, because this is the *variable* x
// (1));



Final note regarding your title:




declaring a variable twice in IIFE




The variable is only declared once. The other thing is a parameter, not a variable. The distinction is rarely important...this being one of those rare times. :-)






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago











  • Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago














13












13








13








but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.




It's not just you. This is a deep, dark part of the specification. :-)



The key here is that there are two xs. Yes, really. There's the parameter x, and there's the variable x.



A parameter list containing expressions (like f's default value) has its own scope separate from the function body's scope. But prior to parameter lists possibly having expressions, having var x within a function with an x parameter had no effect (x was still the parameter, with the parameter's value). So to preserve that, when there's a parameter list with expressions in it, a separate variable is created and the value of the parameter is copied to the variable at the beginning of the function body. Which is the reason for this seemingly-odd (no, not just seemingly) odd behavior. (If you're the kind who likes to dive into the spec, this copying is Step 28 of FunctionDeclarationInstantiation.)



Since f's default value, () => x, is created within the parameter list scope, it refers to the parameter x, not the var.



So the first solution, [2, 1, 1] is correct, because:




  • 2 was assigned to the var x in the function body. So at the end of the function, the var x is 2.


  • 1 was assigned to y from the var x before x got the value 2, so at the end of the function, y is 1.

  • The parameter x's value has never changed, so f() results in 1 at the end of the function

It's as though the code were written like this instead (I've removed unnecessary parens and added missing semicolons):






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));






...I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3...




#3 is [2, 1, 2]. That's correct, because when you remove the var x from the function, there's only one x, the parameter (inherited by the function body from the parmeter list). So assigning 2 to x changes the parameter's value, which f returns.



Taking the earier example with param_x and var_x, here's what it looks like if you remove the var x; from it:






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));






Here's an annotated description of the original code (with the extraneous parentheses removed and missing semicolons added):



// /---- the parameter "x"
// v vvvvvvvvvvv--- the parameter "f" with a default value
console.log(function(x, f = () => x)
var x; // <=== the *variable* x, which gets its initial value from the
// parameter x
var y = x; // <=== sets y to 1 (x's current value)
x = 2; // <=== changes the *variable* x's value to 2
// +---------- 2, because this is the *variable* x
// (1));



Final note regarding your title:




declaring a variable twice in IIFE




The variable is only declared once. The other thing is a parameter, not a variable. The distinction is rarely important...this being one of those rare times. :-)






share|improve this answer
















but still I can't get why it shows 1 instead of undefined.




It's not just you. This is a deep, dark part of the specification. :-)



The key here is that there are two xs. Yes, really. There's the parameter x, and there's the variable x.



A parameter list containing expressions (like f's default value) has its own scope separate from the function body's scope. But prior to parameter lists possibly having expressions, having var x within a function with an x parameter had no effect (x was still the parameter, with the parameter's value). So to preserve that, when there's a parameter list with expressions in it, a separate variable is created and the value of the parameter is copied to the variable at the beginning of the function body. Which is the reason for this seemingly-odd (no, not just seemingly) odd behavior. (If you're the kind who likes to dive into the spec, this copying is Step 28 of FunctionDeclarationInstantiation.)



Since f's default value, () => x, is created within the parameter list scope, it refers to the parameter x, not the var.



So the first solution, [2, 1, 1] is correct, because:




  • 2 was assigned to the var x in the function body. So at the end of the function, the var x is 2.


  • 1 was assigned to y from the var x before x got the value 2, so at the end of the function, y is 1.

  • The parameter x's value has never changed, so f() results in 1 at the end of the function

It's as though the code were written like this instead (I've removed unnecessary parens and added missing semicolons):






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));






...I removed var x from the function body, I found that the response changed to #3...




#3 is [2, 1, 2]. That's correct, because when you remove the var x from the function, there's only one x, the parameter (inherited by the function body from the parmeter list). So assigning 2 to x changes the parameter's value, which f returns.



Taking the earier example with param_x and var_x, here's what it looks like if you remove the var x; from it:






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));






Here's an annotated description of the original code (with the extraneous parentheses removed and missing semicolons added):



// /---- the parameter "x"
// v vvvvvvvvvvv--- the parameter "f" with a default value
console.log(function(x, f = () => x)
var x; // <=== the *variable* x, which gets its initial value from the
// parameter x
var y = x; // <=== sets y to 1 (x's current value)
x = 2; // <=== changes the *variable* x's value to 2
// +---------- 2, because this is the *variable* x
// (1));



Final note regarding your title:




declaring a variable twice in IIFE




The variable is only declared once. The other thing is a parameter, not a variable. The distinction is rarely important...this being one of those rare times. :-)






console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));





console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var var_x = param_x;
var y = var_x;
var_x = 2;
return [var_x, y, f()];
(1));





console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));





console.log(function(param_x, f = () => param_x) 
var y = param_x;
param_x = 2;
return [param_x, y, f()];
(1));






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 9 hours ago

























answered 10 hours ago









T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder

699k12312431341




699k12312431341







  • 1





    This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago











  • Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago













  • 1





    This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago











  • Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago








1




1





This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

– Pointy
10 hours ago





This is now in my list of "new weird things about JavaScript" alongside the semantics of (not yet really standard) instance property initialization expressions in class declarations.

– Pointy
10 hours ago













@Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

– T.J. Crowder
10 hours ago





@Pointy - Oh, this is much weirder than field declarations. :-D

– T.J. Crowder
10 hours ago













Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

– Pointy
10 hours ago





Well field declarations are jarring to me because this is the instance, not the this of the surrounding scope as with object initializers. I guess it's not really "weird" if you think of class declarations as being something akin to macro expansion.

– Pointy
10 hours ago













@Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

– T.J. Crowder
10 hours ago






@Pointy - Yeah. I think of them as code that's relocated to the beginning of the constructor (just after the super call if it's a subclass). That's what Java does with instance field initializers and instance initialization blocks (and they're literally copied to the beginning of each constructor in Java; thankfully in JavaScript we just have the one). JavaScript took effectively the same approach.

– T.J. Crowder
10 hours ago














1














The tricky part of that code is that the => function is created as part of a default parameter value expression. In parameter default value expressions, the scope includes the parameters declared to the left, which in this case includes the parameter x. Thus for that reason the x in the => function is in fact the first parameter.



The function is called with just one parameter, 1, so when the => function is called that's what it returns, giving [2, 1, 1].



The var x declaration, as Mr Crowder points out, has the (somewhat weird, at least to me) effect of making a new x in the function scope, into which is copied the value of the parameter x. Without it, there's only the one (the parameter).






share|improve this answer

























  • That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago















1














The tricky part of that code is that the => function is created as part of a default parameter value expression. In parameter default value expressions, the scope includes the parameters declared to the left, which in this case includes the parameter x. Thus for that reason the x in the => function is in fact the first parameter.



The function is called with just one parameter, 1, so when the => function is called that's what it returns, giving [2, 1, 1].



The var x declaration, as Mr Crowder points out, has the (somewhat weird, at least to me) effect of making a new x in the function scope, into which is copied the value of the parameter x. Without it, there's only the one (the parameter).






share|improve this answer

























  • That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago













1












1








1







The tricky part of that code is that the => function is created as part of a default parameter value expression. In parameter default value expressions, the scope includes the parameters declared to the left, which in this case includes the parameter x. Thus for that reason the x in the => function is in fact the first parameter.



The function is called with just one parameter, 1, so when the => function is called that's what it returns, giving [2, 1, 1].



The var x declaration, as Mr Crowder points out, has the (somewhat weird, at least to me) effect of making a new x in the function scope, into which is copied the value of the parameter x. Without it, there's only the one (the parameter).






share|improve this answer















The tricky part of that code is that the => function is created as part of a default parameter value expression. In parameter default value expressions, the scope includes the parameters declared to the left, which in this case includes the parameter x. Thus for that reason the x in the => function is in fact the first parameter.



The function is called with just one parameter, 1, so when the => function is called that's what it returns, giving [2, 1, 1].



The var x declaration, as Mr Crowder points out, has the (somewhat weird, at least to me) effect of making a new x in the function scope, into which is copied the value of the parameter x. Without it, there's only the one (the parameter).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 10 hours ago

























answered 10 hours ago









PointyPointy

321k45461528




321k45461528












  • That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago

















  • That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

    – Pointy
    10 hours ago











  • I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

    – Jonas Wilms
    10 hours ago











  • @Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

    – T.J. Crowder
    10 hours ago
















That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago





That still does not explain why removing var x; results in 2, 1, 2 ...

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago













@JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

– Pointy
10 hours ago





@JonasWilms you're right; the var declaration must ... do something but it doesn't seem obvious to me what that is. It's as if the var declaration creates a new x in the function scope, but it clearly gets the value of the parameter x anyway (which I'd expect), leaving the parameter apparently in its own scope.

– Pointy
10 hours ago













I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago





I guess the values are somewhat copied from the default initializers scope to the bodies scope. Im already digging into the spec

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago













It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago





It makes sense. As noted in the spec: NOTE: A separate Environment Record is needed to ensure that closures created by expressions in the formal parameter list do not have visibility of declarations in the function body. thats reasonable.

– Jonas Wilms
10 hours ago













@Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

– T.J. Crowder
10 hours ago





@Pointy - It's a very deep, dark part of the spec. :-)

– T.J. Crowder
10 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55560027%2fdeclaring-a-variable-twice-in-iife%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367