difference between "void 0 " and "undefined"
I'm using "Closure Compiler", when compiling my scripts I spend the following:
Before compiling:
// ==ClosureCompiler==
// @compilation_level SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS
// @output_file_name default.js
// @formatting pretty_print,print_input_delimiter
// ==/ClosureCompiler==
var myObj1 = 开发者_运维问答(function() {
var undefined; //<----- declare undefined
this.test = function(value, arg1) {
var exp = 0;
arg1 = arg1 == undefined ? true : arg1; //<----- use declare undefined
exp = (arg1) ? value * 5 : value * 10;
return exp;
};
return this;
}).call({});
var myObj2 = (function() {
this.test = function(value, arg1) {
var exp = 0;
arg1 = arg1 == undefined ? true : arg1; //<----- without declare undefined
exp = (arg1) ? value * 5 : value * 10;
return exp;
};
return this;
}).call({});
Compiled:
// Input 0
var myObj1 = function() {
this.test = function(b, a) {
a = a == void 0 ? true : a; //<-----
var c = 0;
return c = a ? b * 5 : b * 10
};
return this
}.call({}), myObj2 = function() {
this.test = function(b, a) {
a = a == undefined ? true : a; //<-----
var c = 0;
return c = a ? b * 5 : b * 10
};
return this
}.call({});
With this I believe the question of the use of "void 0 " and "undefined", is there any difference in the use or the two cases are well?.
Edit
if I define "var undefined" compiled with "void 0 ", if I did not define "undefined" compiled with "undedined. " then not a matter of number of characters between "undefined" and "void 0"
Test
Edit II: performance, based on this link
Code and Test
IE 8:
typeof: 228ms undefined: 62ms void 0: 57msFirefox 3.6:
typeof: 10ms undefined: 3ms void 0: 3msOpera 11:
typeof: 67ms undefined: 19ms void 0: 20msChrome 8:
typeof: 3ms undefined: 5ms void 0: 3msFrom MDN:
The
void
operator evaluates the givenexpression
and then returnsundefined
.This operator allows inserting expressions that produce side effects into places where an expression that evaluates to undefined is desired.
The void operator is often used merely to obtain the
undefined
primitive value, usually using "void(0)
" (which is equivalent to "void 0
"). In these cases, the global variableundefined
can be used instead (assuming it has not been assigned to a non-default value).
Closure Compiler swaps in void 0
because it contains fewer characters than undefined
, therefore producing equivalent, smaller code.
Re: OP comment
yes, I read the documentation, but in the example I gave, "google closure" in a case using "void 0" and another "undefined"
I believe this is actually a bug in Google Closure Compiler!
The real only semantic difference between void expr
and undefined
is that on ECMAScript 3, the undefined
property of the global object (window.undefined
on browser environments) is writable, whereas the void
operator will return the undefined
value always.
A popular pattern that is often implemented, to use undefined
without worries is simply declaring an argument, and not passing anything to it:
(function (undefined) {
//...
if (foo !== undefined) {
// ...
}
})();
That will allow minifiers to shrink the argument maybe to a single letter (even shorter than void 0
:), e.g.:
(function (a) {
//...
if (foo !== a) {
// ...
}
})();
Just a follow-up on all the answers before.
They look the same, but to the Compiler they are completely different.
The two code sections compile to different outputs because one is referring to a local variable (the var undefined), and the compiler simply in-lines it because it is used exactly once and is no more than one line. If it is used more than once, then this in-lining won't happen. The in-lining provides a result of "undefined", which is shorter to represent as "void 0".
The one without a local variable is referring to the variable called "undefined" under the global object, which is automatically "extern'ed" by the Closure Compiler (in fact, all global object properties are). Therefore, no renaming takes place, and no in-lining takes place. Voila! still "undefined".
There is no difference, Try it yourself:
void 0 === undefined
will evaluate to true
.
undefined
is 3 characters longer, I guess that is the reason why they use it that way.
精彩评论