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
    Regular Expressions for the Rest of Us

    Sooner or later you'll run across a regular expression. With their cryptic syntax, confusing documentation and massive learning curve, most developers settle for copying and pasting them from StackOverflow and hoping they work. But what if you could decode regular expressions and harness their power? In...

  • By
    Welcome to My New Office

    My first professional web development was at a small print shop where I sat in a windowless cubical all day. I suffered that boxed in environment for almost five years before I was able to find a remote job where I worked from home. The first...

Incredible Demos

  • By
    Telephone Link Protocol

    We've always been able to create links with protocols other than the usual HTTP, like mailto, skype, irc ,and more;  they're an excellent convenience to visitors.  With mobile phone browsers having become infinitely more usable, we can now extend that convenience to phone numbers: The tel...

  • By
    MooTools Text Flipping

    There are lots and lots of useless but fun JavaScript techniques out there. This is another one of them. One popular April Fools joke I quickly got tired of was websites transforming their text upside down. I found a jQuery Plugin by Paul...

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!