Hacker News Reader

Comment by emblem21 | Hacker News Reader

  for(var i in list) { 
    (function(element) {
      someAsyncCallThatNeedsTheRightIndexedElement(element);
    })(list[i]);
  }

I've seen people grumble that this is "too clever"

I've been known to snap back "Bootcamps don't have a monopoly on what technical solutions are valid"

Pointers are probably too clever for most people.

Admittedly, goto is too clever for me. :(

View on HN

I'd just write:

  for(var i in list) { 
    someAsyncCallThatNeedsTheRightIndexedElement(list[i])
  }

though I usually try to avoid for loops with `.map` or `.forEach`:

  list.forEach(someAsyncCallThatNeedsTheRightIndexedElement)

The IIFE in your code is unnecessary and I would thus probably side with the too clever camp in this case.

Note: this is fixed in ES6. Using `let` instead of `var` will treat each iteration's variable as distinct:

    a = []
    for (let i = 0; i <3; i++)
        a.push(() => console.log('hi ' + i))
    for (let e of a)
        e()

Logs:

    hi 0
    hi 1
    hi 2

Actually, it's almost surprising in the opposite direction now.

When "too clever" is "I don't understand", yeah, it's bad. I'd snap back with "let's use clojurescript then". Or I'll clarify whether they think 'var i' in the loop is too clever or the scope fixing code that's pretty common to do in JS is too clever.

Try using .call

The binding of the element to the lexical scope is done for later executions. .call is immediate.

I think they meant try using .call and see the 'too clever' remarks come in. I'll delete this if they clarify...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com