You write that the existing answers don't have enough detail, but even after reading your specific questions, I'm not completely sure exactly which aspects of the code are throwing you for a loop — it has a number of tricky parts — so I apologize in advance if this answer goes overboard with details about things you've already understood!
Since makeClass
is always meant to be called the same way, it's a bit easier to reason about it if we remove one level of indirection. This:
var MyClass = makeClass();
is equivalent to this:
function MyClass(args)
{
if ( this instanceof arguments.callee )
{
if ( typeof this.init == "function" )
this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );
}
else
return new arguments.callee( arguments );
}
Since we're no longer dealing with an anonymous function, we no longer need the arguments.callee
notation: it necessarily refers to MyClass
, so we can replace all instances of it with MyClass
, giving this:
function MyClass(args)
{
if ( this instanceof MyClass )
{
if ( typeof this.init == "function" )
this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );
}
else
return new MyClass( arguments );
}
where args
is an identifier for MyClass
's first argument, and arguments
, as always, is an array-like object containing all of MyClass
's arguments.
The line you're asking about is only reached if the "class" has a function named init
in its prototype (which will be the "constructor"), so let's give it one:
MyClass.prototype.init =
function (prop)
{
this.prop = prop;
};
Once we've done that, consider this:
var myInstance1 = new MyClass('value');
Inside the call to MyClass
, this
will refer to the object being constructed, so this instanceof MyClass
will be true. And typeof this.init == "function"
will be true, because we made MyClass.prototype.init
be a function. So we reach this line:
this.init.apply( this, args.callee ? args : arguments );
Here args
is equal to 'value'
(the first argument), so it's a string, so it doesn't have the callee
property; so args.callee
is undefined, which in a Boolean context means it's false, so args.callee ? args : arguments
is equivalent to arguments
. Therefore, the above line is equivalent to this:
this.init.apply(this, arguments);
which is equivalent to this:
this.init('value');
(if you don't already know how apply
works, and how it differs from call
, see https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/apply).
Does that make sense so far?
The other case to consider is this:
var myInstance2 = MyClass('value');
Inside the call to MyClass
, this
will refer to the global object (typically window
), so this instanceof MyClass
will be false, so we reach this line:
return new MyClass( arguments );
where arguments
is an array-like object containing a single element: 'value'
. Note that this is not the same as new MyClass('value')
.
Terminological note: So the call to MyClass('value')
results in a second call to MyClass
, this time with new
. I'm going to call the first call (without new
) the "outer call", and the second call (with new
) the "inner call". Hopefully that's intuitive.
Inside the inner call to MyClass
, args
now refers to the outer call's arguments
object: instead of args
being 'value'
, it's now an array-like object containing 'value'
. And instead of args.callee
being undefined, it now refers to MyClass
, so args.callee ? args : arguments
is equivalent to args
. So the inner call to MyClass
is calling this.init.apply(this, args)
, which is equivalent to this.init('value')
.
So the test on args.callee
is intended to distinguish an inner call (MyClass('value')
→ new MyClass(arguments)
) from a normal direct call (new MyClass('value')
). Ideally we could eliminate that test by replacing this line:
return new MyClass( arguments );
with something hypothetical that looked like this:
return new MyClass.apply( itself, arguments );
but JavaScript doesn't allow that notation (nor any equivalent notation).
You can see, by the way, that there are a few small problems with Resig's code:
- If we define a constructor
MyClass.prototype.init
, and then we instantiate the "class" by writing var myInstance3 = new MyClass();
, then args
will be undefined inside the call to MyClass
, so the test on args.callee
will raise an error. I think this is simply a bug on Resig's part; at any rate, it's easily fixed by testing on args && args.callee
instead.
- If our constructor's first argument happens to actually have a property named
callee
, then the test on args.callee
will produce a false positive, and the wrong arguments will be passed into the constructor. This means that, for example, we cannot design the constructor to take an arguments
object as its first argument. But this issue seems difficult to work around, and it's probably not worth worrying about.