As a follow-up to the post documenting a few popular HTML element + attribute notations, here’s a similar one about JavaScript.
When writing (in text, not in JavaScript) about properties on specific prototypes, you may use the JavaScript notation, foo.prototype.bar. However, this shorter (non-JavaScript) notation is often used instead: foo#bar. Basically, the hash (#) stands for .prototype. — fancy huh?
Let’s see an example:
var numbers = [1, 2, 3]; // array literal
numbers.push(42); // `numbers` is now `[1, 2, 3, 42]`Here, the Array.prototype.push method is called. You could also say Array#push is called.
A note about jQuery
For convenience, jQuery aliases jQuery.prototype to jQuery.fn. Don’t let this fool you! Whenever you use e.g. jQuery(elem).remove() you’re still calling jQuery.prototype.remove (to which jQuery.fn.remove is a reference), or — using the short notation — jQuery#remove.
Also note the difference between e.g. jQuery#map and jQuery.map:
jQuery(elems).map(fn); // jQuery#map, which is jQuery.prototype.map (or jQuery.fn.map)
jQuery.map(arr, fn); // jQuery.mapSimilarly, when using a jQuery plugin that extends jQuery.fn, you’re really extending jQuery.prototype. I’ve been using the short notation when talking about jQuery plugins, e.g. jQuery#placeholder.
IDL attributes
In the spec world, sometimes the Foo#bar notation is used to refer to the bar IDL attribute of Foo rather than foo.prototype.bar.
Comments
Drew Wells wrote on :
This is a pretty good idea; you should really share these ideas with jQuery’s API. They’re sorta of skirting the issue by having methods off of invisible objects.
Mathias wrote on :
Drew: I don’t take credit for the idea though — this notation has been around for quite a while, and to be honest I don’t know who came up with it. I’m just trying to document it here since a lot of people are confused the first time they see it. I know I once was :)
Gianni Chiappetta wrote on :
FWIW this representation method is used in Ruby documentation to differentiate instance/class methods, it was adopted by Prototype originally (IIRC).
Kit Cambridge wrote on :
Mathias: I believe Java uses member dot notation (e.g.,
Array.push) for class and instance methods, though this is clearly problematic in JavaScript for the reasons outlined in your post. I’ve also occasionally seen Ruby’s::operator used to refer to instance methods (e.g.,Array::push).Mathias wrote on :
Thanks for the info, Gianni and Kit!
sexyprout wrote on :
Are there any historical reasons why
#means.prototype.?sexyprout wrote on :
Whoops, forget my last question. It’s answered by the previous comments.
Tobie Langel wrote on :
Kit: That’s for static methods in Ruby, actually.
@nsolsen wrote on :
I like this kind of notation. I have been developing a lot of C++ over the years. In C++ the notation is double colon (
foo::bar).@jayferd wrote on :
I’ve been using
Foo::bar, which in CoffeeScript actually expands toFoo.prototype.bar. It also helps me remember that JS prototypes are quite different from Ruby’s class/module system.It also gives you a couple of neat extras: