Determining Object Type with MooTools’ typeOf

By  on  

One thing about JavaScript I dislike is the vagueness of what the typeof operator returns. Pass typeof an array? You get "object" back (which it is, but a more concise answer would be helpful). Pass typeof a Date object? You get "object" again. What if there was a better way of determining an object's descriptive type? That's where the typeOf function within MooTools Core comes into play.

typeOf Source and Usage

The typeOf function is actually quite short:

var typeOf = this.typeOf = function(item){
	if (item == null) return 'null';
	if (item.$family) return item.$family();

	if (item.nodeName){
		if (item.nodeType == 1) return 'element';
		if (item.nodeType == 3) return (/\S/).test(item.nodeValue) ? 'textnode' : 'whitespace';
	} else if (typeof item.length == 'number'){
		if (item.callee) return 'arguments';
		if ('item' in item) return 'collection';
	}

	return typeof item;
};

typeOf checks for specific properties on the object in question to determine its descriptive type. Simple, right? Note the $family() check within typeOf; each Type (Array, Function, Date, etc.) instance is given a $family method which returns its type. Let's try a few typeOf calls:

typeof document.body;  // returns "object"
typeOf(document.body);  // returns "element"

typeof new Date();  // returns "object"
typeOf(new Date());  // returns "date"

typeof [];  // returns "object"
typeOf([]);  // returns "array"

typeOf is an awesome utility function, right? Getting a more detailed object type than simply "object" can be hugely help in validating the object before using it. typeOf is just another awesome utility within the MooTools JavaScript framework.

Recent Features

  • By
    JavaScript Promise API

    While synchronous code is easier to follow and debug, async is generally better for performance and flexibility. Why "hold up the show" when you can trigger numerous requests at once and then handle them when each is ready?  Promises are becoming a big part of the JavaScript world...

  • By
    9 Mind-Blowing WebGL Demos

    As much as developers now loathe Flash, we're still playing a bit of catch up to natively duplicate the animation capabilities that Adobe's old technology provided us.  Of course we have canvas, an awesome technology, one which I highlighted 9 mind-blowing demos.  Another technology available...

Incredible Demos

  • By
    Create a Quick MooTools Slideshow with Preloading Images

    I've been creating a lot of slideshow posts lately. Why, you ask? Because they help me get chicks. A quick formula for you: The following code snippet will show you how to create a simple slideshow with MooTools; the script will also...

  • By
    Reverse Element Order with CSS Flexbox

    CSS is becoming more and more powerful these days, almost to the point where the order of HTML elements output to the page no longer matters from a display standpoint -- CSS lets you do so much that almost any layout, large or small, is possible.  Semantics...

Discussion

  1. I use the regular “typeOf” to determine if classes are present, but the MooTools typeOf is much better, and great for making sure variables are the correct type. I wish more plugin coders would return robust error messages with these kinds of checks.

  2. Nice one !!!!!!

  3. Lorenzo

    Anyone knows if Mootools’ typeOf is more reliable than standard typeof when I want to check if something is a function or not?

    var a = (function() { return true; });
    var b = { name: 'value' };
    // typeof(a) == typeOf(a) == 'function' is always TRUE?
    // typeof(b) == typeOf(b) != 'function' is always TRUE?
    
  4. Mootools supports another type check – the Type Object.
    Type.isNumber(var), Type.isObject() etc.

    This is nowhere in the docs (except once used in an example on the Array page). It is shorter and more semantic when you are checking for one type, don’t know why it is hidden.

Wrap your code in <pre class="{language}"></pre> tags, link to a GitHub gist, JSFiddle fiddle, or CodePen pen to embed!