!function () {}();
-
2related: [JavaScript plus sign in front of function name](http://stackoverflow.com/q/13341698/1048572) – Bergi Aug 20 '14 at 11:39
-
1We calling it [**Self-executing anonymous function**](http://benalman.com/news/2010/11/immediately-invoked-function-expression/) --- – befzz Jun 12 '15 at 19:58
-
11@befzz Better to refer to this as an Immediately Invoked Function Expression, as that article later explains ("self-executing" implies recursion) – Zach Esposito Aug 22 '15 at 16:03
8 Answers
JavaScript syntax 101: here is a function declaration:
function foo() {}
Note that there’s no semicolon; this is just a function declaration. You would need an invocation, foo(), to actually run the function.
Now, when we add the seemingly innocuous exclamation mark: !function foo() {} it turns it into an expression. It is now a function expression.
The ! alone doesn’t invoke the function, of course, but we can now put () at the end: !function foo() {}(), which has higher precedence than ! and instantly calls the function.
function foo() {}() would be a syntax error because you can’t put arguments (()) right after a function declaration.
So what the author is doing is saving a byte per function expression; a more readable way of writing it would be this:
(function(){})();
Lastly, ! makes the expression return a boolean based on the return value of the function. Usually, an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) doesn’t explicitly return anything, so its return value will be undefined, which leaves us with !undefined which is true. This boolean isn’t used.
- 16,564
- 7
- 51
- 69
- 52,766
- 8
- 57
- 71
-
79+1 This is the only answer that actually addresses WHY you would want to do this, and why one sees it used more than the negation of the return result would seem to warrant. The unary operator ! (also ~, - and +) disambiguates from a function declaration, and allows the parens at the end () to invoke the function in-place. This is often done to create a local scope / namespace for variables when writing modular code. – Tom Auger Sep 28 '11 at 18:34
-
Why do you need to wrap a block of code into a function to execute it? Why instead of `(function(){alert('bla');)})();` one can't simply write `alert('bla');`? – Andrew Savinykh May 29 '12 at 21:00
-
1@zespri As Tom says, "This is often done to create a local scope / namespace for variables when writing modular code." – Neil May 29 '12 at 23:58
-
83Another benefit is that ! causes a semi-colon insertion, so it's impossible for this version to be wrongly concatenated with a file that doesn't end with a ;. If you have the () form, it would consider it a function call of whatever was defined in the previous file. Tip of the hat to a co-worker of mine. – Jure Triglav Nov 13 '12 at 20:31
-
1One more benefit - since there is literally no reason to do `!function` or `}()` other than an iife it makes it easy to scrape them out of code if need be. Not a major thing, but I've used that fact a few times. – George Mauer Jul 30 '13 at 22:09
-
2One downside is that ! forces a return value. Sometimes this matters, sometimes it does not - but if you happen to need to test the return value from the function and "undefined" is a valid possibility, you best not use the ! convention and instead use ({})() since it can return undefined. Consider: var foo = !function(bar){}("bat");console.log("foo:",foo);//=>true Verses: var foo = (function(bar){})("bat");console.log("foo:",foo);//=>undefined – Carnix Oct 02 '13 at 20:32
-
6@Carnix `var foo =` breaks the statement/expression ambiguity and you can simply write `var foo = function(bar){}("baz");` etc. – Neil Oct 08 '13 at 10:49
-
8this is ugly to see... The long way round is not too long to choose the exclamation mark. This way could save to the developer a fraction of a second, and hours to understand to others. – Pablo Ezequiel Leone May 29 '14 at 17:00
-
3@PabloEzequielLeoneSignetti: It has nothing to do with the length of the code irrespective of the spurious claim made in this answer. It's about using an operator that is not overridden for multiple purposes that can be interpreted different ways depending on its surrounding code. The `!` is a prefix unary operator, and will only ever be interpreted as that. I doubt it would take any competent developer "hours to understand" this. – cookie monster Aug 30 '14 at 18:30
-
3The "more readable" version is no more readable nor simpler to understand for someone who has never seen it before, which is why there are so many questions on SO asking what `(function(){})()` means. – cookie monster Aug 30 '14 at 18:31
-
`function foo() {}` is not a statement. It's a declaration. Though some implementations incorrectly allow it to be used as a statement in some cases. The `!function foo() {};` is an expression statement. – Dec 31 '14 at 19:00
-
1
-
10This is usually done by minification/uglification scripts, where every single byte counts. – Dima Slivin Oct 04 '15 at 10:31
-
The precedence rule you mention is unrelated or rather symptomatic to why this works the way it does. Better answer is the one by @Michael Burr right below – Fotios Basagiannis Dec 16 '16 at 20:52
-
4
The function:
function () {}
returns nothing (or undefined).
Sometimes we want to call a function right as we create it. You might be tempted to try this:
function () {}()
but it results in a SyntaxError.
Using the ! operator before the function causes it to be treated as an expression, so we can call it:
!function () {}()
This will also return the boolean opposite of the return value of the function, in this case true, because !undefined is true. If you want the actual return value to be the result of the call, then try doing it this way:
(function () {})()
- 5,531
- 1
- 33
- 47
- 321,763
- 49
- 514
- 739
-
18
-
14Your second code sample isn't valid JavaScript. The purpose of the `!` is to turn the function declaration into a function expression, that's all. – Skilldrick Sep 30 '11 at 08:28
-
8@Andrey The bootstrap twitter uses this in all there javascript (jQuery) plugin files. Adding this comment just in case others might also have the same question. – Anmol Saraf Aug 20 '12 at 18:07
-
2
-
1@Andrey - The time that I have seen this was in minimized code, where saving that one extra byte is a win. – Mike Hedman Aug 27 '14 at 20:10
-
"_If you want the actual return value to be the result of the call, then try doing it this way: `(function () {})()`_". Why does that work like that? Thanks, I know this is from forever ago.. – 1252748 Aug 30 '14 at 18:49
-
1@thomas That snippet of code is simply shorthand for declaring a function and then calling it. So rather than `function myFunction(){}; myFunction();` you can just say `(function () {})()`. This works because function names are optional and putting brackets around a function declaration make that function an expression, i.e. allow it to be immediately invoked. I know your question is now from forever ago – Ronnie Mar 08 '16 at 15:18
-
1@Ronnie heheh yeah this snippet is far less mystifying to me than it was in 2014, but thanks for following up! – 1252748 Mar 08 '16 at 15:24
-
@thomas I've just realised its not really accurate to say function names are optional. They are required for non-anonymous functions, and for anonymous functions, although they are optional, their inclusion is redundant. – Ronnie Mar 08 '16 at 15:26
There is a good point for using ! for function invocation marked on airbnb JavaScript guide
Generally idea for using this technique on separate files (aka modules) which later get concatenated. The caveat here is that files supposed to be concatenated by tools which put the new file at the new line (which is anyway common behavior for most of concat tools). In that case, using ! will help to avoid error in if previously concatenated module missed trailing semicolon, and yet that will give the flexibility to put them in any order with no worry.
!function abc(){}();
!function bca(){}();
Will work the same as
!function abc(){}();
(function bca(){})();
but saves one character and arbitrary looks better.
And by the way any of +,-,~,void operators have the same effect, in terms of invoking the function, for sure if you have to use something to return from that function they would act differently.
abcval = !function abc(){return true;}() // abcval equals false
bcaval = +function bca(){return true;}() // bcaval equals 1
zyxval = -function zyx(){return true;}() // zyxval equals -1
xyzval = ~function xyz(){return true;}() // your guess?
but if you using IIFE patterns for one file one module code separation and using concat tool for optimization (which makes one line one file job), then construction
!function abc(/*no returns*/) {}()
+function bca() {/*no returns*/}()
Will do safe code execution, same as a very first code sample.
This one will throw error cause JavaScript ASI will not be able to do its work.
!function abc(/*no returns*/) {}()
(function bca() {/*no returns*/})()
One note regarding unary operators, they would do similar work, but only in case, they used not in the first module. So they are not so safe if you do not have total control over the concatenation order.
This works:
!function abc(/*no returns*/) {}()
^function bca() {/*no returns*/}()
This not:
^function abc(/*no returns*/) {}()
!function bca() {/*no returns*/}()
-
3Actually, those other symbols do not have the same effect. Yes, they allow you to call a function as described, but they are not identical. Consider: var foo = !function(bar){ console.debug(bar); }("bat"); No matter what which of your symbols you put in front, you get "bat" in your console. Now, add console.debug("foo:",foo); -- you get very different results based on what symbol you use. ! forces a return value which isn't always desirable. I prefer the ({})() syntax for clarity and accuracy. – Carnix Oct 02 '13 at 20:28
-
It returns whether the statement can evaluate to false. eg:
!false // true
!true // false
!isValid() // is not valid
You can use it twice to coerce a value to boolean:
!!1 // true
!!0 // false
So, to more directly answer your question:
var myVar = !function(){ return false; }(); // myVar contains true
Edit: It has the side effect of changing the function declaration to a function expression. E.g. the following code is not valid because it is interpreted as a function declaration that is missing the required identifier (or function name):
function () { return false; }(); // syntax error
-
6For the sake of clarity for readers who may want to use an assignment with an immediately invoked function your example code `var myVar = !function(){ return false; }()` could omit the `!` like `var myVar = function(){ return false; }()` and the function will execute correctly and the return value will be untouched. – Mark Fox Mar 11 '13 at 00:55
-
1To be clear, you can use it once to coerce to Boolean, because it's a *logical not* operator. !0 = true, and !1 = false. For JavaScript minification purposes, you'd want to replace `true` with `!0` and `false` with `!1`. It saves 2 or 3 characters. – Triynko Jul 26 '15 at 01:07
Its just to save a byte of data when we do javascript minification.
consider the below anonymous function
function (){}
To make the above as self invoking function we will generally change the above code as
(function (){}())
Now we added two extra characters (,) apart from adding () at the end of the function which necessary to call the function. In the process of minification we generally focus to reduce the file size. So we can also write the above function as
!function (){}()
Still both are self invoking functions and we save a byte as well. Instead of 2 characters (,) we just used one character !
- 8,269
- 5
- 28
- 42
- 623
- 6
- 12
Exclamation mark makes any function always return a boolean.
The final value is the negation of the value returned by the function.
!function bool() { return false; }() // true
!function bool() { return true; }() // false
Omitting ! in the above examples would be a SyntaxError.
function bool() { return true; }() // SyntaxError
However, a better way to achieve this would be:
(function bool() { return true; })() // true
- 7,335
- 4
- 37
- 38
- 2,411
- 22
- 21
-
5This is incorrect. `!` changes the way the runtime parses the function. It makes the runtime treat the function as a function expression (and not a declaration). It does this to enable the developer to immediately invoke the function using the `()` syntax. `!` will also apply itself (ie negation) to the result of invoking the function expression. – Ben Aston Jan 23 '20 at 19:27
! is a logical NOT operator, it's a boolean operator that will invert something to its opposite.
Although you can bypass the parentheses of the invoked function by using the BANG (!) before the function, it will still invert the return, which might not be what you wanted. As in the case of an IEFE, it would return undefined, which when inverted becomes the boolean true.
Instead, use the closing parenthesis and the BANG (!) if needed.
// I'm going to leave the closing () in all examples as invoking the function with just ! and () takes away from what's happening.
(function(){ return false; }());
=> false
!(function(){ return false; }());
=> true
!!(function(){ return false; }());
=> false
!!!(function(){ return false; }());
=> true
Other Operators that work...
+(function(){ return false; }());
=> 0
-(function(){ return false; }());
=> -0
~(function(){ return false; }());
=> -1
Combined Operators...
+!(function(){ return false; }());
=> 1
-!(function(){ return false; }());
=> -1
!+(function(){ return false; }());
=> true
!-(function(){ return false; }());
=> true
~!(function(){ return false; }());
=> -2
~!!(function(){ return false; }());
=> -1
+~(function(){ return false; }());
+> -1
- 13,409
- 8
- 60
- 61
Its another way of writing IIFE (immediately-invoked function expression).
Its other way of writing -
(function( args ) {})()
same as
!function ( args ) {}();
- 936
- 11
- 22
-
1Well, it's not exactly the same; the 2nd form negates the result of the function call (and then throws it away, because there is no value assignment). I'd strictly prefer the more explicit `(function (args) {...})()` syntax and leave that `!function` form to minification and obfuscation tools. – Tobias Oct 16 '17 at 14:31