Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6084057
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 23, 20262026-05-23T11:28:38+00:00 2026-05-23T11:28:38+00:00

I saw this article on polymorphic callable objects and was trying to get it

  • 0

I saw this article on polymorphic callable objects and was trying to get it to work, however it seems that they are not really polymorphic, or at least they do not respect the prototype chain.

This code prints undefined, not "hello there".

Does this method not work with prototypes, or am I doing something wrong?

var callableType = function (constructor) {
  return function () {
    var callableInstance = function () {
      return callableInstance.callOverload.apply(callableInstance, arguments);
    };
    constructor.apply(callableInstance, arguments);
    return callableInstance;
  };
};

var X = callableType(function() {
    this.callOverload = function(){console.log('called!')};
});

X.prototype.hello = "hello there";

var x_i = new X();
console.log(x_i.hello);
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-23T11:28:39+00:00Added an answer on May 23, 2026 at 11:28 am

    You’d need to change this:

    var X = callableType(function() {
        this.callOverload = function(){console.log('called!')};
    });
    

    to this:

    var X = new (callableType(function() {
        this.callOverload = function(){console.log('called!')};
    }));
    

    Notice the new as well as the parentheses around the callableType invocation.

    The parentheses allows callableType to be invoked and return the function, which is used as the constructor for new.


    EDIT:

    var X = callableType(function() {
        this.callOverload = function() {
            console.log('called!')
        };
    });
    
    var someType = X();      // the returned constructor is referenced
    var anotherType = X();   // the returned constructor is referenced
    
    someType.prototype.hello = "hello there";  // modify the prototype of
    anotherType.prototype.hello = "howdy";     //    both constructors
    
    var some_i = new someType();           // create a new "someType" object
    console.log(some_i.hello, some_i);
    
    var another_i = new anotherType();     // create a new "anotherType" object
    console.log(another_i.hello, another_i);
    
    someType();      // or just invoke the callOverload
    anotherType();
    

    I really don’t know how/where/why you’d use this pattern, but I suppose there’s some good reason.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

This is not homework. I saw this article praising Linq library and how great
I saw the following namespace implementation in an article and i really can't get
I swear I saw an article about this at one point but can not
When I saw this article about using a python-like sintax (indentation based, without curly
I saw this same question for VIM and it has been something that I
I saw this signature on the ListView class: public ListView..::.ListViewItemCollection Items { get; }
I saw this article pop-up in my MSDN RSS feed, and after reading through
I just saw this code #pragma warning disable 659, 660, 661 MSDN article is
I just saw this block of code on the Wikipedia article on conditional operators:
Browsing through Coding Horror, I saw this article on removing the user field from

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.