Dynamically access object property using variable
I'm trying to access a property of an object using a dynamic name. Is this possible?
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something.foo; // The idea is to access something.bar, getting "Foobar!"
javascript object properties
add a comment |
I'm trying to access a property of an object using a dynamic name. Is this possible?
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something.foo; // The idea is to access something.bar, getting "Foobar!"
javascript object properties
3
See also property access: dot notation vs. brackets? and How do I add a property to an object using a variable as the name?
– Bergi
Nov 18 '14 at 6:11
add a comment |
I'm trying to access a property of an object using a dynamic name. Is this possible?
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something.foo; // The idea is to access something.bar, getting "Foobar!"
javascript object properties
I'm trying to access a property of an object using a dynamic name. Is this possible?
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something.foo; // The idea is to access something.bar, getting "Foobar!"
javascript object properties
javascript object properties
edited Mar 22 '17 at 16:12
Taryn♦
188k46286351
188k46286351
asked Nov 22 '10 at 11:23
RichW
3,25141729
3,25141729
3
See also property access: dot notation vs. brackets? and How do I add a property to an object using a variable as the name?
– Bergi
Nov 18 '14 at 6:11
add a comment |
3
See also property access: dot notation vs. brackets? and How do I add a property to an object using a variable as the name?
– Bergi
Nov 18 '14 at 6:11
3
3
See also property access: dot notation vs. brackets? and How do I add a property to an object using a variable as the name?
– Bergi
Nov 18 '14 at 6:11
See also property access: dot notation vs. brackets? and How do I add a property to an object using a variable as the name?
– Bergi
Nov 18 '14 at 6:11
add a comment |
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
There are two ways to access properties of an object:
- Dot notation:
something.bar
- Bracket notation:
something['bar']
The value between the brackets can be any expression. Therefore, if the property name is stored in a variable, you have to use bracket notation:
var foo = 'bar';
something[foo];
// both x = something[foo] and something[foo] = x work as expected
22
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
4
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
2
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
|
show 2 more comments
This is my solution:
function resolve(path, obj) self)
Usage examples:
resolve("document.body.style.width")
// or
resolve("style.width", document.body)
// or even use array indexes
// (someObject has been defined in the question)
resolve("part.0.size", someObject)
// returns null when intermediate properties are not defined:
resolve('properties.that.do.not.exist', hello:'world')
4
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
add a comment |
In javascript we can access with:
- dot notation -
foo.bar
- square brackets -
foo[someVar]
orfoo["string"]
But only second case allows to access properties dynamically:
var foo = pName1 : 1, pName2 : [1, foo : bar , 3] , ...
var name = "pName"
var num = 1;
foo[name + num]; // 1
// --
var a = 2;
var b = 1;
var c = "foo";
foo[name + a][b][c]; // bar
1
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
add a comment |
Following is an ES6 example of how you can access the property of an object using a property name that has been dynamically generated by concatenating two strings.
var suffix = " name";
var person =
["first" + suffix]: "Nicholas",
["last" + suffix]: "Zakas"
;
console.log(person["first name"]); // "Nicholas"
console.log(person["last name"]); // "Zakas"
This is called computed property names
add a comment |
You can achieve this in quite a few different ways.
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar;
foo['bar'];
The bracket notation is specially powerful as it let's you access a property based on a variable:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
let prop = 'bar';
foo[prop];
This can be extended to looping over every property of an object. This can be seem redundant due to newer JavaScript constructs such as for ... of ..., but helps illustrate a use case:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
for (let prop in foo.getOwnPropertyNames())
console.log(foo[prop]);
Both dot and bracket notation also work as expected for nested objects:
let foo =
bar:
baz: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar.baz;
foo['bar']['baz'];
foo.bar['baz'];
foo['bar'].baz;
Object destructuring
We could also consider object destructuring as a means to access a property in an object, but as follows:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
let prop = 'last';
let bar, baz, [prop]: customName = foo;
// bar = 'Hello World'
// baz = 'How are you doing?'
// customName = 'Quite alright'
add a comment |
UPDATED
I have take comments below into consideration and agreed. Eval is to be avoided.
Accessing root properties in object is easily achieved with obj[variable]
, but getting nested complicates thing. Not to write already written code I suggest to use lodash.get
.
Example
// Accessing root property
var rootProp = 'rootPropert';
_.get(object, rootProp, defaultValue);
// Accessing nested property
var listOfNestedProperties = [var1, var2];
_.get(object, listOfNestedProperties);
Lodash get can be used on different ways, here is link to the documentation lodash.get
4
It's best to avoid usingeval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…
– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
7
Usingeval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"?obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.
– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
3
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I useobj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!
– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
1
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.
– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
1
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
|
show 3 more comments
Whenever you need to access property dynamically you have to use square bracket for accessing property not "." operator
Syntax: object[propery}
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
add a comment |
You can do it like this using Lodash get
_.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
add a comment |
It gets interesting when you have to pass parameters to this function as well.
Code jsfiddle
var obj = method:function(p1,p2,p3)console.log("method:",arguments)
var str = "method('p1', 'p2', 'p3');"
var match = str.match(/^s*(S+)((.*));s*$/);
var func = match[1]
var parameters = match[2].split(',');
for(var i = 0; i < parameters.length; ++i)
// clean up param begninning
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/^s*['"]?/,'');
// clean up param end
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/['"]?s*$/,'');
obj[func](parameters); // sends parameters as array
obj[func].apply(this, parameters); // sends parameters as individual values
add a comment |
You should use JSON.parse
, take a look at https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_json_parse.asp
const obj = JSON.parse(' "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"')
console.log(obj.name)
console.log(obj.age)
add a comment |
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something[`$foo`];
7
Why on earth would you do that? Yourfoo
is already a string, so`$foo`
is exactly the same asfoo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)
– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
add a comment |
protected by Samuel Liew♦ Oct 5 '15 at 9:00
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are two ways to access properties of an object:
- Dot notation:
something.bar
- Bracket notation:
something['bar']
The value between the brackets can be any expression. Therefore, if the property name is stored in a variable, you have to use bracket notation:
var foo = 'bar';
something[foo];
// both x = something[foo] and something[foo] = x work as expected
22
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
4
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
2
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
|
show 2 more comments
There are two ways to access properties of an object:
- Dot notation:
something.bar
- Bracket notation:
something['bar']
The value between the brackets can be any expression. Therefore, if the property name is stored in a variable, you have to use bracket notation:
var foo = 'bar';
something[foo];
// both x = something[foo] and something[foo] = x work as expected
22
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
4
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
2
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
|
show 2 more comments
There are two ways to access properties of an object:
- Dot notation:
something.bar
- Bracket notation:
something['bar']
The value between the brackets can be any expression. Therefore, if the property name is stored in a variable, you have to use bracket notation:
var foo = 'bar';
something[foo];
// both x = something[foo] and something[foo] = x work as expected
There are two ways to access properties of an object:
- Dot notation:
something.bar
- Bracket notation:
something['bar']
The value between the brackets can be any expression. Therefore, if the property name is stored in a variable, you have to use bracket notation:
var foo = 'bar';
something[foo];
// both x = something[foo] and something[foo] = x work as expected
edited Jan 2 '18 at 18:05
Salman A
175k66336424
175k66336424
answered Nov 22 '10 at 11:25
Jan Hančič
40.8k138189
40.8k138189
22
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
4
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
2
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
|
show 2 more comments
22
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
4
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
2
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
22
22
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
careful with this: javascript compilers will error here since they dont rename strings but they do rename object properties
– chacham15
Dec 6 '11 at 8:40
4
4
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
Some more info on why this is possible: JS objects are associative arrays, that's why. Further Reading: quirksmode.org/js/associative.html stackoverflow.com/questions/14031368/…
– dotnetguy
Jun 3 '14 at 9:00
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
@dotnetguy No they are not. Arrays are objects that inherit from the plain JS object prototype and therefore you can add properties a go-go like any plain object. The 'associative' behaviour is more object-like than array like. You can't iterate the 'associative' version by simple index so it is not displaying array-like behaviour. You can define your 'associative' array as or and treat it the same in either case as far as random property access is concerned.
– Vanquished Wombat
Jan 3 '17 at 16:01
2
2
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
@VanquishedWombat Not sure what your objection pertains to? I did not say that JS Objects are arrays?
– dotnetguy
Jan 6 '17 at 0:30
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
as a reference to the correct answer , Reference
– youhana
Jun 8 '17 at 21:23
|
show 2 more comments
This is my solution:
function resolve(path, obj) self)
Usage examples:
resolve("document.body.style.width")
// or
resolve("style.width", document.body)
// or even use array indexes
// (someObject has been defined in the question)
resolve("part.0.size", someObject)
// returns null when intermediate properties are not defined:
resolve('properties.that.do.not.exist', hello:'world')
4
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
add a comment |
This is my solution:
function resolve(path, obj) self)
Usage examples:
resolve("document.body.style.width")
// or
resolve("style.width", document.body)
// or even use array indexes
// (someObject has been defined in the question)
resolve("part.0.size", someObject)
// returns null when intermediate properties are not defined:
resolve('properties.that.do.not.exist', hello:'world')
4
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
add a comment |
This is my solution:
function resolve(path, obj) self)
Usage examples:
resolve("document.body.style.width")
// or
resolve("style.width", document.body)
// or even use array indexes
// (someObject has been defined in the question)
resolve("part.0.size", someObject)
// returns null when intermediate properties are not defined:
resolve('properties.that.do.not.exist', hello:'world')
This is my solution:
function resolve(path, obj) self)
Usage examples:
resolve("document.body.style.width")
// or
resolve("style.width", document.body)
// or even use array indexes
// (someObject has been defined in the question)
resolve("part.0.size", someObject)
// returns null when intermediate properties are not defined:
resolve('properties.that.do.not.exist', hello:'world')
edited Sep 23 '17 at 14:45
GeekyDeaks
500511
500511
answered Jul 26 '17 at 8:57
abahet
3,13111819
3,13111819
4
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
add a comment |
4
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
4
4
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
This is similar to lodash get
– Moby Disk
Dec 15 '17 at 14:06
add a comment |
In javascript we can access with:
- dot notation -
foo.bar
- square brackets -
foo[someVar]
orfoo["string"]
But only second case allows to access properties dynamically:
var foo = pName1 : 1, pName2 : [1, foo : bar , 3] , ...
var name = "pName"
var num = 1;
foo[name + num]; // 1
// --
var a = 2;
var b = 1;
var c = "foo";
foo[name + a][b][c]; // bar
1
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
add a comment |
In javascript we can access with:
- dot notation -
foo.bar
- square brackets -
foo[someVar]
orfoo["string"]
But only second case allows to access properties dynamically:
var foo = pName1 : 1, pName2 : [1, foo : bar , 3] , ...
var name = "pName"
var num = 1;
foo[name + num]; // 1
// --
var a = 2;
var b = 1;
var c = "foo";
foo[name + a][b][c]; // bar
1
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
add a comment |
In javascript we can access with:
- dot notation -
foo.bar
- square brackets -
foo[someVar]
orfoo["string"]
But only second case allows to access properties dynamically:
var foo = pName1 : 1, pName2 : [1, foo : bar , 3] , ...
var name = "pName"
var num = 1;
foo[name + num]; // 1
// --
var a = 2;
var b = 1;
var c = "foo";
foo[name + a][b][c]; // bar
In javascript we can access with:
- dot notation -
foo.bar
- square brackets -
foo[someVar]
orfoo["string"]
But only second case allows to access properties dynamically:
var foo = pName1 : 1, pName2 : [1, foo : bar , 3] , ...
var name = "pName"
var num = 1;
foo[name + num]; // 1
// --
var a = 2;
var b = 1;
var c = "foo";
foo[name + a][b][c]; // bar
answered Jul 1 '14 at 15:40
Sonique
2,36042540
2,36042540
1
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
add a comment |
1
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
1
1
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
I'm staring at 2,000 lines of if statements because the previous dev didn't use square brackets, and statically accessed object properties by dot notation. It's for an approval process app that has 7 different approvers and the steps are all the same. /rip
– Chad
Jun 7 '18 at 14:28
add a comment |
Following is an ES6 example of how you can access the property of an object using a property name that has been dynamically generated by concatenating two strings.
var suffix = " name";
var person =
["first" + suffix]: "Nicholas",
["last" + suffix]: "Zakas"
;
console.log(person["first name"]); // "Nicholas"
console.log(person["last name"]); // "Zakas"
This is called computed property names
add a comment |
Following is an ES6 example of how you can access the property of an object using a property name that has been dynamically generated by concatenating two strings.
var suffix = " name";
var person =
["first" + suffix]: "Nicholas",
["last" + suffix]: "Zakas"
;
console.log(person["first name"]); // "Nicholas"
console.log(person["last name"]); // "Zakas"
This is called computed property names
add a comment |
Following is an ES6 example of how you can access the property of an object using a property name that has been dynamically generated by concatenating two strings.
var suffix = " name";
var person =
["first" + suffix]: "Nicholas",
["last" + suffix]: "Zakas"
;
console.log(person["first name"]); // "Nicholas"
console.log(person["last name"]); // "Zakas"
This is called computed property names
Following is an ES6 example of how you can access the property of an object using a property name that has been dynamically generated by concatenating two strings.
var suffix = " name";
var person =
["first" + suffix]: "Nicholas",
["last" + suffix]: "Zakas"
;
console.log(person["first name"]); // "Nicholas"
console.log(person["last name"]); // "Zakas"
This is called computed property names
edited Jul 10 '17 at 6:11
try-catch-finally
4,75342451
4,75342451
answered Aug 2 '16 at 19:46
zloctb
4,69834148
4,69834148
add a comment |
add a comment |
You can achieve this in quite a few different ways.
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar;
foo['bar'];
The bracket notation is specially powerful as it let's you access a property based on a variable:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
let prop = 'bar';
foo[prop];
This can be extended to looping over every property of an object. This can be seem redundant due to newer JavaScript constructs such as for ... of ..., but helps illustrate a use case:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
for (let prop in foo.getOwnPropertyNames())
console.log(foo[prop]);
Both dot and bracket notation also work as expected for nested objects:
let foo =
bar:
baz: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar.baz;
foo['bar']['baz'];
foo.bar['baz'];
foo['bar'].baz;
Object destructuring
We could also consider object destructuring as a means to access a property in an object, but as follows:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
let prop = 'last';
let bar, baz, [prop]: customName = foo;
// bar = 'Hello World'
// baz = 'How are you doing?'
// customName = 'Quite alright'
add a comment |
You can achieve this in quite a few different ways.
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar;
foo['bar'];
The bracket notation is specially powerful as it let's you access a property based on a variable:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
let prop = 'bar';
foo[prop];
This can be extended to looping over every property of an object. This can be seem redundant due to newer JavaScript constructs such as for ... of ..., but helps illustrate a use case:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
for (let prop in foo.getOwnPropertyNames())
console.log(foo[prop]);
Both dot and bracket notation also work as expected for nested objects:
let foo =
bar:
baz: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar.baz;
foo['bar']['baz'];
foo.bar['baz'];
foo['bar'].baz;
Object destructuring
We could also consider object destructuring as a means to access a property in an object, but as follows:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
let prop = 'last';
let bar, baz, [prop]: customName = foo;
// bar = 'Hello World'
// baz = 'How are you doing?'
// customName = 'Quite alright'
add a comment |
You can achieve this in quite a few different ways.
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar;
foo['bar'];
The bracket notation is specially powerful as it let's you access a property based on a variable:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
let prop = 'bar';
foo[prop];
This can be extended to looping over every property of an object. This can be seem redundant due to newer JavaScript constructs such as for ... of ..., but helps illustrate a use case:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
for (let prop in foo.getOwnPropertyNames())
console.log(foo[prop]);
Both dot and bracket notation also work as expected for nested objects:
let foo =
bar:
baz: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar.baz;
foo['bar']['baz'];
foo.bar['baz'];
foo['bar'].baz;
Object destructuring
We could also consider object destructuring as a means to access a property in an object, but as follows:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
let prop = 'last';
let bar, baz, [prop]: customName = foo;
// bar = 'Hello World'
// baz = 'How are you doing?'
// customName = 'Quite alright'
You can achieve this in quite a few different ways.
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar;
foo['bar'];
The bracket notation is specially powerful as it let's you access a property based on a variable:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World'
;
let prop = 'bar';
foo[prop];
This can be extended to looping over every property of an object. This can be seem redundant due to newer JavaScript constructs such as for ... of ..., but helps illustrate a use case:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
for (let prop in foo.getOwnPropertyNames())
console.log(foo[prop]);
Both dot and bracket notation also work as expected for nested objects:
let foo =
bar:
baz: 'Hello World'
;
foo.bar.baz;
foo['bar']['baz'];
foo.bar['baz'];
foo['bar'].baz;
Object destructuring
We could also consider object destructuring as a means to access a property in an object, but as follows:
let foo =
bar: 'Hello World',
baz: 'How are you doing?',
last: 'Quite alright'
;
let prop = 'last';
let bar, baz, [prop]: customName = foo;
// bar = 'Hello World'
// baz = 'How are you doing?'
// customName = 'Quite alright'
edited Dec 13 '17 at 8:06
answered Mar 8 '17 at 11:30
Gorka Hernandez
2,317823
2,317823
add a comment |
add a comment |
UPDATED
I have take comments below into consideration and agreed. Eval is to be avoided.
Accessing root properties in object is easily achieved with obj[variable]
, but getting nested complicates thing. Not to write already written code I suggest to use lodash.get
.
Example
// Accessing root property
var rootProp = 'rootPropert';
_.get(object, rootProp, defaultValue);
// Accessing nested property
var listOfNestedProperties = [var1, var2];
_.get(object, listOfNestedProperties);
Lodash get can be used on different ways, here is link to the documentation lodash.get
4
It's best to avoid usingeval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…
– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
7
Usingeval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"?obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.
– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
3
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I useobj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!
– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
1
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.
– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
1
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
|
show 3 more comments
UPDATED
I have take comments below into consideration and agreed. Eval is to be avoided.
Accessing root properties in object is easily achieved with obj[variable]
, but getting nested complicates thing. Not to write already written code I suggest to use lodash.get
.
Example
// Accessing root property
var rootProp = 'rootPropert';
_.get(object, rootProp, defaultValue);
// Accessing nested property
var listOfNestedProperties = [var1, var2];
_.get(object, listOfNestedProperties);
Lodash get can be used on different ways, here is link to the documentation lodash.get
4
It's best to avoid usingeval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…
– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
7
Usingeval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"?obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.
– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
3
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I useobj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!
– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
1
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.
– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
1
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
|
show 3 more comments
UPDATED
I have take comments below into consideration and agreed. Eval is to be avoided.
Accessing root properties in object is easily achieved with obj[variable]
, but getting nested complicates thing. Not to write already written code I suggest to use lodash.get
.
Example
// Accessing root property
var rootProp = 'rootPropert';
_.get(object, rootProp, defaultValue);
// Accessing nested property
var listOfNestedProperties = [var1, var2];
_.get(object, listOfNestedProperties);
Lodash get can be used on different ways, here is link to the documentation lodash.get
UPDATED
I have take comments below into consideration and agreed. Eval is to be avoided.
Accessing root properties in object is easily achieved with obj[variable]
, but getting nested complicates thing. Not to write already written code I suggest to use lodash.get
.
Example
// Accessing root property
var rootProp = 'rootPropert';
_.get(object, rootProp, defaultValue);
// Accessing nested property
var listOfNestedProperties = [var1, var2];
_.get(object, listOfNestedProperties);
Lodash get can be used on different ways, here is link to the documentation lodash.get
edited Jun 19 '18 at 9:29
answered Jun 22 '15 at 8:10
Mr Br
1,519916
1,519916
4
It's best to avoid usingeval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…
– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
7
Usingeval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"?obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.
– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
3
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I useobj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!
– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
1
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.
– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
1
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
|
show 3 more comments
4
It's best to avoid usingeval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…
– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
7
Usingeval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"?obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.
– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
3
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I useobj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!
– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
1
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.
– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
1
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
4
4
It's best to avoid using
eval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
It's best to avoid using
eval
whenever possible. stackoverflow.com/questions/86513/…– Luke
Jun 23 '15 at 18:07
7
7
Using
eval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"? obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
Using
eval
for something as trivial as accessing properties is plain overkill and hardly advisable under any circumstance. What's "trouble"? obj['nested']['test']
works very well and doesn't require you to embed code in strings.– Paul Stenne
Oct 23 '15 at 10:14
3
3
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I use
obj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
eval is three times slower or more, I wouldn't recommend this to newbies because it might teach them bad habits. I use
obj['nested']['value']
- remember kids, eval is evil!– jaggedsoft
Nov 26 '15 at 1:25
1
1
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash
_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
@Luke He's now the only want to bring Lodash
_.get
to the table. I think this answer deserves now upvotes instead of downvotes. It may be overkill, but it's good to know it exists.– Emile Bergeron
Dec 20 '16 at 21:42
1
1
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
Thank you for introducing lodash for this. I came here by google looking for a method to set a value deep in an object, and used their _.set method (which is identical to above but with the extra arguement for the value to set).
– TPHughes
Jul 3 '18 at 9:03
|
show 3 more comments
Whenever you need to access property dynamically you have to use square bracket for accessing property not "." operator
Syntax: object[propery}
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
add a comment |
Whenever you need to access property dynamically you have to use square bracket for accessing property not "." operator
Syntax: object[propery}
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
add a comment |
Whenever you need to access property dynamically you have to use square bracket for accessing property not "." operator
Syntax: object[propery}
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
Whenever you need to access property dynamically you have to use square bracket for accessing property not "." operator
Syntax: object[propery}
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
// something.foo; -- not correct way at it is expecting foo as proprty in something= foo: "value";
// correct way is something[foo]
alert( something[foo])
edited Jul 31 '18 at 8:25
Manasi
434314
434314
answered Jul 31 '18 at 8:24
Rupesh Agrawal
607419
607419
add a comment |
add a comment |
You can do it like this using Lodash get
_.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
add a comment |
You can do it like this using Lodash get
_.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
add a comment |
You can do it like this using Lodash get
_.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
You can do it like this using Lodash get
_.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
edited Sep 6 '18 at 15:57
JJJ
29k147591
29k147591
answered Sep 6 '18 at 6:36
shalonteoh
2551311
2551311
add a comment |
add a comment |
It gets interesting when you have to pass parameters to this function as well.
Code jsfiddle
var obj = method:function(p1,p2,p3)console.log("method:",arguments)
var str = "method('p1', 'p2', 'p3');"
var match = str.match(/^s*(S+)((.*));s*$/);
var func = match[1]
var parameters = match[2].split(',');
for(var i = 0; i < parameters.length; ++i)
// clean up param begninning
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/^s*['"]?/,'');
// clean up param end
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/['"]?s*$/,'');
obj[func](parameters); // sends parameters as array
obj[func].apply(this, parameters); // sends parameters as individual values
add a comment |
It gets interesting when you have to pass parameters to this function as well.
Code jsfiddle
var obj = method:function(p1,p2,p3)console.log("method:",arguments)
var str = "method('p1', 'p2', 'p3');"
var match = str.match(/^s*(S+)((.*));s*$/);
var func = match[1]
var parameters = match[2].split(',');
for(var i = 0; i < parameters.length; ++i)
// clean up param begninning
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/^s*['"]?/,'');
// clean up param end
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/['"]?s*$/,'');
obj[func](parameters); // sends parameters as array
obj[func].apply(this, parameters); // sends parameters as individual values
add a comment |
It gets interesting when you have to pass parameters to this function as well.
Code jsfiddle
var obj = method:function(p1,p2,p3)console.log("method:",arguments)
var str = "method('p1', 'p2', 'p3');"
var match = str.match(/^s*(S+)((.*));s*$/);
var func = match[1]
var parameters = match[2].split(',');
for(var i = 0; i < parameters.length; ++i)
// clean up param begninning
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/^s*['"]?/,'');
// clean up param end
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/['"]?s*$/,'');
obj[func](parameters); // sends parameters as array
obj[func].apply(this, parameters); // sends parameters as individual values
It gets interesting when you have to pass parameters to this function as well.
Code jsfiddle
var obj = method:function(p1,p2,p3)console.log("method:",arguments)
var str = "method('p1', 'p2', 'p3');"
var match = str.match(/^s*(S+)((.*));s*$/);
var func = match[1]
var parameters = match[2].split(',');
for(var i = 0; i < parameters.length; ++i)
// clean up param begninning
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/^s*['"]?/,'');
// clean up param end
parameters[i] = parameters[i].replace(/['"]?s*$/,'');
obj[func](parameters); // sends parameters as array
obj[func].apply(this, parameters); // sends parameters as individual values
answered Nov 13 '16 at 17:37
Jacksonkr
17.7k34137234
17.7k34137234
add a comment |
add a comment |
You should use JSON.parse
, take a look at https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_json_parse.asp
const obj = JSON.parse(' "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"')
console.log(obj.name)
console.log(obj.age)
add a comment |
You should use JSON.parse
, take a look at https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_json_parse.asp
const obj = JSON.parse(' "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"')
console.log(obj.name)
console.log(obj.age)
add a comment |
You should use JSON.parse
, take a look at https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_json_parse.asp
const obj = JSON.parse(' "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"')
console.log(obj.name)
console.log(obj.age)
You should use JSON.parse
, take a look at https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_json_parse.asp
const obj = JSON.parse(' "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"')
console.log(obj.name)
console.log(obj.age)
answered Jun 14 '17 at 21:42
onmyway133
24.4k14157190
24.4k14157190
add a comment |
add a comment |
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something[`$foo`];
7
Why on earth would you do that? Yourfoo
is already a string, so`$foo`
is exactly the same asfoo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)
– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
add a comment |
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something[`$foo`];
7
Why on earth would you do that? Yourfoo
is already a string, so`$foo`
is exactly the same asfoo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)
– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
add a comment |
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something[`$foo`];
const something = bar: "Foobar!" ;
const foo = 'bar';
something[`$foo`];
edited Sep 19 '17 at 17:12
Cody Gray♦
191k34373461
191k34373461
answered Jul 2 '17 at 19:04
Sergey
984
984
7
Why on earth would you do that? Yourfoo
is already a string, so`$foo`
is exactly the same asfoo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)
– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
add a comment |
7
Why on earth would you do that? Yourfoo
is already a string, so`$foo`
is exactly the same asfoo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)
– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
7
7
Why on earth would you do that? Your
foo
is already a string, so `$foo`
is exactly the same as foo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
Why on earth would you do that? Your
foo
is already a string, so `$foo`
is exactly the same as foo
. (Also, your code seems to have some extra backslashes that don't belong there. But it would still be pointless even if you fixed that syntax error.)– Ilmari Karonen
Sep 19 '17 at 18:49
add a comment |
protected by Samuel Liew♦ Oct 5 '15 at 9:00
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
3
See also property access: dot notation vs. brackets? and How do I add a property to an object using a variable as the name?
– Bergi
Nov 18 '14 at 6:11