ES6 in Depth – Symbols(hacks.mozilla.org)
hacks.mozilla.org
ES6 in Depth – Symbols
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/06/es6-in-depth-symbols/
16 comments
You can still use them to make almost-completely-private methods and properties, it's just the syntactic sugar that was dropped:
http://raganwald.com/2015/06/04/classes-are-expressions.html
HN discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9660658
http://raganwald.com/2015/06/04/classes-are-expressions.html
HN discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9660658
> Calling Symbol() creates a new symbol, a value that’s not equal to any other value.
Lisp:
> Call Symbol()
Lisp:
CL-USER 1 > (eq (make-symbol "Foo") (make-symbol "Foo"))
NIL
CL-USER 2 > (type-of (make-symbol "Foo"))
SYMBOL
CL-USER 3 > (concatenate 'string "abc" 'foo "def")
Error: In a call to LENGTH: FOO (of type SYMBOL) is not of type SEQUENCE.
> Call Symbol()
(make-symbol "FOO")
(find-symbol "FOO")
That first example with 'eq is a little surprising to me. Previous to your post, I believed that Common Lisp symbols were equivalent to Lisp atoms. That is, I just thought of symbols as a way of interning strings (like Smalltalk, Objc, Ruby, etc.) ES6 Symbols reminded me of gensym. I didn't expect to see ES6 having the same behaviour as Common Lisp!
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for posting.
As a very green JS programmer, I found this post informative and fun.
I think this sentence has an editing mistake in it:
I think this sentence has an editing mistake in it:
It’s simply a property whose name is not a symbol rather than a string.
I wrote a lil' article about using Symbols a month ago - https://medium.com/code-ops/party-tricks-with-es6-symbols-ee...
Probably the most interesting use I've found for Symbols so far is to detect if an object / function was created by a specific factory - https://gist.github.com/yoshuawuyts/2bf8d5394e6f995791a0
Probably the most interesting use I've found for Symbols so far is to detect if an object / function was created by a specific factory - https://gist.github.com/yoshuawuyts/2bf8d5394e6f995791a0
Symbols are odd. Maybe it's just me but they feel like they work "funny" in JavaScript.
As the article says you can't implicitly convert a symbol's description to string. Symbol is now the only native object in JavaScript that has this behavior.
var str = "something" + "str"; // Works
var num = "something" + 5; // Works
var func = "something" + function () { }; // Works
var obj = "something" + { some: "test" }; // Works
var bool = "something" + true; // Works
var dt = "something" + Date.now(); // Works
var und = "something" + undefined; // Works
var nul = "something" + null; // Works
var nan = "something" + NaN; // Works
var sym = "something" + Symbol("test"); // Throws TypeError
Another thing, which is more of a style thing in my opinion, is you can actually define a property with a Symbol which just seems awkward to me. I mean sure you can use it as a property by design so why wouldn't you be able to use defineProperty? I always felt those should be public types of properties where you can add additional logic where necessary.
var obj = { };
Object.defineProperty(obj, Symbol("MyProp"), {
I feel like almost the same thing with Symbol could be accomplished with a simple UUID generator. It's a neat little thing it just feels awkward to me with how JavaScript works.
As the article says you can't implicitly convert a symbol's description to string. Symbol is now the only native object in JavaScript that has this behavior.
var str = "something" + "str"; // Works
var num = "something" + 5; // Works
var func = "something" + function () { }; // Works
var obj = "something" + { some: "test" }; // Works
var bool = "something" + true; // Works
var dt = "something" + Date.now(); // Works
var und = "something" + undefined; // Works
var nul = "something" + null; // Works
var nan = "something" + NaN; // Works
var sym = "something" + Symbol("test"); // Throws TypeError
Another thing, which is more of a style thing in my opinion, is you can actually define a property with a Symbol which just seems awkward to me. I mean sure you can use it as a property by design so why wouldn't you be able to use defineProperty? I always felt those should be public types of properties where you can add additional logic where necessary.
var obj = { };
Object.defineProperty(obj, Symbol("MyProp"), {
get: function () { return 15; }
I feel like almost the same thing with Symbol could be accomplished with a simple UUID generator. It's a neat little thing it just feels awkward to me with how JavaScript works.
The other funny thing is: ES6 introduced `Map`, `Set`, and the `class` keyword. All of them throw if you try to create a new instance without `new`. It also introduced `Symbol`, which throws if you do use `new`.
I don't understand why the author compares ES6 symbols to Ruby symbols; they're nothing alike. It's kind of the opposite: Ruby symbols are guaranteed to be the same object if they have the same name, ES6 symbols are guaranteed to be a different object, even if they have the same name (description)
s1 = Symbol.for('cat')
s2 = Symbol.for('cat')
s1 === s2 // true
`Symbol.for` uses a global registry and the whole thing is "stringly typed".
Looks like an anti-pattern to me.
If you want one particular symbol from some library, you could import it.
Looks like an anti-pattern to me.
If you want one particular symbol from some library, you could import it.
This was the one thing I didn't understand. Why is using a global Symbol registry any better than just using string properties like usual?
There won't be a problem if the string happens to be e.g. "toString", I guess. Although they added a 'Map' for that, too.
s1 = Symbol("cat");
s2 = Symbol.for("cat");
s3 = Symbol.for("cat");
s1 == s2; // false
s2 == s3; // true
That I understand. What I don't understand is why s2 and s3 shouldn't just be vanilla strings.
Looks like Symbols is a type being introduced because objects, when used as a key in another object, gets turned into a string, unlike Lua tables can be used as keys of other tables, and are guaranteed to not be equal to any other value. Lua tables are built-in symbols. Javascript's objects are not.
Yeah, it seems like kind of an odd choice to introduce a whole new type and extend the kind of values that can index an object, when extending object indexing alone would do everything symbols do anyway.
Are you talking about Maps in ES6 or Symbols? Using an object as a key is what you can do with Maps.
I wish javascript had some kind of flag so you could get it to act sanely. All the comparison operators would work like they do in sane languages; type conversion wouldn't be quite so automatic and insane, etc.
If you just make sure to always use === then this is exactly what happens. You can use tools like jslint to warn you if you accidentally use ==
That just fixes one of javascript's weirdnesses. There are many many others.
Not quite though. I had a bug with Javascript where I was reading in a number and forgot to parse it to a float. I ended up doing an addition with that value, which later got used as a float again. So I had 1 + "10" turn to 110 when I tried to use it. No == or === anywhere.
I was only really referring to automatic type conversion for comparisons. That said, the example you gave sounds like the opposite, where you wanted it to do some auto-conversion and you're disappointed that it didn't? If I did 1 + "10" I don't think I'd want it to return 11!
I'd want it to throw some kind of cast exception, personally, not try and do what it thinks I want. (I'm not the GP)
It did convert the value. It converted the 1 to a string and added "10" to the end of it, resulting in "110" which then was converted to a float and used.
The error in this case would be forgetting Javascript's rules of implicit conversion.
Adding a float to a string results in a string.
The error in this case would be forgetting Javascript's rules of implicit conversion.
Adding a float to a string results in a string.
This is very limited symbol type. They might have named them keywords instead. It's just interned string with a new type.
(It's like Common Lisp symbols limited inside the keyword package)
(It's like Common Lisp symbols limited inside the keyword package)
I'm not entirely convinced with the function-call syntax for declaring a Symbol.
Why not using something more of the lines with Ruby's :symbol syntax?
Why not using something more of the lines with Ruby's :symbol syntax?
Here's the other thing that neither of the other commenters mentioned:
You can't go around peppering your code with use of this new syntax if you want it to continue working on older runtimes. With `Symbol`, you can at least create a polyfill that approximates what it's shooting for.
> declaring a Symbol
Don't think of it as "declaring a symbol" (because it isn't). Think of it as generating a symbol (because it is).
You can't go around peppering your code with use of this new syntax if you want it to continue working on older runtimes. With `Symbol`, you can at least create a polyfill that approximates what it's shooting for.
> declaring a Symbol
Don't think of it as "declaring a symbol" (because it isn't). Think of it as generating a symbol (because it is).
ES6 already adds a ton of new constructs that won't run on older browsers. Relying on symbols to be interned also won't work on older machines. A symbol-literal syntax like #symbol and #"spaced symbol" would make them far easier to use and increase their adoption.
Who really wants to write map.add(new Symbol("foo"), 'bar') instead of map.add(#foo, 'bar')?
Who really wants to write map.add(new Symbol("foo"), 'bar') instead of map.add(#foo, 'bar')?
> Who really wants to write map.add(new Symbol("foo"), 'bar') instead of map.add(#foo, 'bar')?
It makes it clear when you are generating new symbol, and when you are reusing existing symbol.
It makes it clear when you are generating new symbol, and when you are reusing existing symbol.
var a = new Symbol("foo");
var b = new Symbol("foo");
map[a]="firstValue";
map[b]="secondValue";
Console.log(map[a] + " " + map[b]);
// writes "firstValue secondValue"
map[#foo]="firstValue";
map[#foo]="secondValue";
Console.log(map[#foo]); // what is written here?[deleted]
> Who really wants to write map.add(new Symbol("foo"), 'bar')
Nobody because it's completely daft, and absolutely not equivalent to the second version, the equivalent to the second version is:
Nobody because it's completely daft, and absolutely not equivalent to the second version, the equivalent to the second version is:
map.add("foo", "bar")I guess because they do not behave in the same way.
In fact new Symbol() is closer to Common Lisp's (gensym) than regular :symbol, since everytime you call it you get something unique.
In particular object[:symbol] would behave quite differently (and would be probably worthless since everytime you would access a new property ).
It would make more sense to have :symbol a shortcut for Symbol.for("symbol") instead, but I don't think it would be that much useful.
In particular object[:symbol] would behave quite differently (and would be probably worthless since everytime you would access a new property ).
It would make more sense to have :symbol a shortcut for Symbol.for("symbol") instead, but I don't think it would be that much useful.
> Why not using something more of the lines with Ruby's :symbol syntax?
Because Ruby's symbols are completely different and designed to collide. A Ruby symbol (like an Erlang atom) is a very cheap immutable string-like structure but :symbol is :symbol.
A Javascript symbol is (as others noted) much closer to a lisp unique symbol (the output of `gensym`), and having it be a function is perfectly fine since you have to keep it around anyway (or you can't access symbol-named properties).
Symbol.for is roughly equivalent to :symbol, but the use case for it is much more limited and there's really no reason for a literal version./
Because Ruby's symbols are completely different and designed to collide. A Ruby symbol (like an Erlang atom) is a very cheap immutable string-like structure but :symbol is :symbol.
A Javascript symbol is (as others noted) much closer to a lisp unique symbol (the output of `gensym`), and having it be a function is perfectly fine since you have to keep it around anyway (or you can't access symbol-named properties).
Symbol.for is roughly equivalent to :symbol, but the use case for it is much more limited and there's really no reason for a literal version./
Why add syntax if you don't need to?
yet another duct tape kind of feature, from people already too corrupted by js, that will be further abused and cause yet more duct tape features in ES7.
this is nothing but a more convoluted way of the pattern that sets a unique object as a unique value for comparison. well, it adds a label for easy debug. hooray.
this is nothing but a more convoluted way of the pattern that sets a unique object as a unique value for comparison. well, it adds a label for easy debug. hooray.
No, also symbol keys don't pollute for-in, Object.keys or Object.getOwnPropertyNames so they are effectively non-global.
As long as you don't use Symbol.for() that is - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
(I do think symbols are useful though, replied for correctness.)
(I do think symbols are useful though, replied for correctness.)
Symbols created with `Symbol.for` don't pollute any of those things, either.
let x = Symbol.for("omghax");
let foo = Object.create(null)
foo[x] = 'bar';
Object.keys(foo).length // returns 0there was already a solution for that: .style in dom elements. it is a place where you dump style properties ad-nausea.
Why not simply add a single new property to Object? It would do the very same thing, would not change the language. it would be readily available to all browsers if you just added that single new key in your logic as you already do with .style and others, and everyone would move on with their lives.
I have to agree this is a duct tape by people thinking they know language design. Now i will have to wait until all browsers have this before i can use. and then i will still have to worry about older browsers (oh android, the IE6 of moment). Not to mention the time browser developers would waste actually improving things will be wasted on that syntax sugar.
Why not simply add a single new property to Object? It would do the very same thing, would not change the language. it would be readily available to all browsers if you just added that single new key in your logic as you already do with .style and others, and everyone would move on with their lives.
I have to agree this is a duct tape by people thinking they know language design. Now i will have to wait until all browsers have this before i can use. and then i will still have to worry about older browsers (oh android, the IE6 of moment). Not to mention the time browser developers would waste actually improving things will be wasted on that syntax sugar.
Symbols are used all the time in Ruby (and a bunch of other languages), not as duct tape but as a very core feature of the language. Why should it be different in JavaScript?
The most simple way to use them is to replace definitions like this one
Unfortunately, from https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referen...
The most simple way to use them is to replace definitions like this one
var north = 1;
var south = 2;
var east = 3;
var west = 4;
var direction1 = north;
var direction2 = south;
direction1 === direction2 ? "ops" : "ok";
var north = new Symbol();
var south = new Symbol();
var east = new Symbol();
var west = new Symbol();
var direction1 = north;
var direction2 = south;
direction1 === direction2 ? "ops" : "ok";
direction1 = :north
direction2 = :south
direction1 === direction2 ? "ops" : "ok"
Unfortunately, from https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referen...
Symbols and JSON.stringify()
Symbol-keyed properties will be completely ignored when using JSON.stringify():
JSON.stringify({[Symbol("foo")]: "foo"});
// '{}'
The base use case for JS symbols is not the same as Ruby symbols: regular strings will work just fine for that.
Symbols in ruby might have the same name but are fundamentally different. E.g. in ruby `:foo` and `:foo` are the same thing. In JavaScript, they are quite explicitly not the same thing. They share little in common (in terms of how they work and what they are designed to do) but the name.
N, E, S, W? I think you want an enum for that.
It was an example of replacing constants with symbols when the value of the constant really doesn't matter. Purposely not fancy stuff. I understand the advantages of enums (among the others, their values are constrained) but does JS have enums?
> does JS have enums?
No, but TypeScript and Dart do.
Enums don't really work without types.
But using Symbols for fake enums is probably a good idea.
No, but TypeScript and Dart do.
Enums don't really work without types.
But using Symbols for fake enums is probably a good idea.
class Enum {
constructor(...props) {
props.forEach(p => this[p] = Symbol(p));
}
}
const dir = Object.freeze(new Enum(...'NESW'));
console.log(dir.E === dir.E); // true
console.log(dir.E === dir.N); // false
I should have used Object.freeze(this) in the c'tor.
Call Symbol.for(string). This accesses a set of existing symbols called the symbol registry. Unlike the unique symbols defined by Symbol(), symbols in the symbol registry are shared. If you call Symbol.for("cat") thirty times, it will return the same symbol each time. The registry is useful when multiple web pages, or multiple modules within the same web page, need to share a symbol.
Have they added inbuilt support for globals here? People could easily add their own global symbols, why does this need to be built in?
Have they added inbuilt support for globals here? People could easily add their own global symbols, why does this need to be built in?
Could you reword the question? I don't understand what you're asking.
I guess I don't understand why the global symbol registry exists. If someone wants a global symbol map, they can create their own. What else does this add over a user implementation, and what are the use cases?
Making the registry global allows compilers to optimize away those Symbol.for() calls, since they know that each call to Symbol.for("cat") is going to resolve to the same symbol instance.
But if people are concerned about performance, they can just pre-allocate/memoize the symbols.
It doesn't seem like the registry adds any new functionality, and it might encourage use of globals. Surely that's a bad thing?
It doesn't seem like the registry adds any new functionality, and it might encourage use of globals. Surely that's a bad thing?
I'm not from a Ruby/Lisp background, so I don't know how symbols are typically used, but the explanation of why symbols are required is to prevent collisions if two libraries chose to use the same property name; so given that, what is the point of the Symbol registry? I don't understand what the value of a symbol that is referenced by a string is, over simply using the string?
See `Symbol.hasInstance` and `Symbol.iterator`; take them as examples. Mapping an object to its iterator is going to be part of the spec and will be required at the language level (`for...of`). Before, if you looked at all of an objects' properties in SpiderMonkey, you will have noticed an `@@iterator` property. The spec could achieve the same thing as it's trying for with `Symbol.iterator` by just using a string-valued `@@iterator` property, but you still get the collision with anybody who would have used that name for something else or anyone looping over all the properties.
The gist is this: symbols are just a way to have non-strings that you can use for properties. There are also facilities to generate them in such a way that the symbol will never, ever collide with those generated by somebody else, but that's not their only purpose.
The gist is this: symbols are just a way to have non-strings that you can use for properties. There are also facilities to generate them in such a way that the symbol will never, ever collide with those generated by somebody else, but that's not their only purpose.
Ah yeah that makes sense, cheers!
I think the idea is so that while symbols can prevent collisions, they can also make it impossible to set a value. The registry allows you to set the value by name, but by doing this you have to keep in mind that there might be a name collision and allows you to handle the collision. Before there was no way tell that a name collision even happened.
One advantage, fast comparison by pointer equality. (Similar to interned strings)
[deleted](1)
If you think that this language feature has no equivalent in your favorite language, it is similar to Ruby's :symbol, where it is mostly used as keys to their hash tables (they're implemented with hashes internally).
Common Lisp has something even closer for its macro system. When you write code that writes code, you often need to create new variable names that won't collide or shadow anything. `(gensym)` does that: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_gens....
Here's a list of languages with support for symbols. You will see even Objective-C has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_%28programming%29#Suppo....
I'd be curious to learn how it is implemented in JS engines.
Common Lisp has something even closer for its macro system. When you write code that writes code, you often need to create new variable names that won't collide or shadow anything. `(gensym)` does that: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_gens....
Here's a list of languages with support for symbols. You will see even Objective-C has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_%28programming%29#Suppo....
I'd be curious to learn how it is implemented in JS engines.
Like a property basically - except the key is not a string and is known to the engine. This is both simple and uses existing JIT facilities. Symbol property access isn't particularly slower than regular access this way too.
See http://blog.peschla.net/doxygen/v8_chromium_r157275/classv8_... - it's
See http://blog.peschla.net/doxygen/v8_chromium_r157275/classv8_... - it's
> Here's a list of languages with support for symbols. You will see even Objective-C has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_%28programming%29#Suppo....
None of the symbols in that table match the purpose and use case for `new Symbol`, though gensym does.
None of the symbols in that table match the purpose and use case for `new Symbol`, though gensym does.
> Sometimes it would be awfully convenient to stash some extra data on a JavaScript object that really belongs to someone else.
Convenient yes, a good idea, no.
> Other code using for-in or Object.keys() may stumble over the property you created.
> The standard committee may decide to add an .isMoving() method to all elements. Then you’re really hosed!
So I dunno, maybe don't stash properties into an object that doesn't belong to you? It's this sort of thing that makes me hate the culture around JavaScript. Hacks upon hacks upon hacks just to save a little effort.
Convenient yes, a good idea, no.
> Other code using for-in or Object.keys() may stumble over the property you created.
> The standard committee may decide to add an .isMoving() method to all elements. Then you’re really hosed!
So I dunno, maybe don't stash properties into an object that doesn't belong to you? It's this sort of thing that makes me hate the culture around JavaScript. Hacks upon hacks upon hacks just to save a little effort.
I don't see why they didn't just use an Object/dictionary. Shouldn't be slow to iterate and solves this exact use case.
From A Rossberg (he's also the guy behind SoundScript) in a March 2014 stackoverflow post (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21724326/why-bring-symbol...):
"Enabling private properties ... was indeed the original motivation for introducing symbols into JavaScript. Unfortunately, however, they ended up being severely downgraded, and not private after all.
They are now known as unique symbols, and their only use is to avoid name clashes between properties....Whether that is strong enough a motivation to add symbols to the language is debatable."
and from R. Waldron as part of this response (https://esdiscuss.org/topic/proposal-about-private-symbol) to a proposal about a private symbol (Dec 2014)
"Ultimately it was decided that Symbol is just a symbol and that "private" things will be dealt with orthogonally (and at a later date)."
YMMV