That's correct. Partly because javascript does not have private properties. What you're doing is not declaring a private property. You're using a design pattern that uses a closure to emulate private properties.
Closures evolve out of scope. A scope refers to the lifespan of variables while object properties refer to binding of variables.
So before discussing closures, lets have a short discussion about scope.
The Stack:
A scope is related to the stack frame (in Computer Science it's called the "activation record" but most developers familiar with C or assembly know it better as stack frame). A scope is to a stack frame what a class is to an object. By that I mean that where an object is an instance of a class, a stack frame is an instance of scope.
Let's use a made-up language as an example. In this language, like in javascript, functions define scope. Lets take a look at an example code:
var global_var
function b {
var bb
}
function a {
var aa
b();
}
When we read the code above, we say that the variable aa is in scope in function a and the variable bb is in scope in function b. Note that we don't call this thing private variables. Because the opposite of private variables are public variables and both refer to properties bound to objects. Instead we call aa and bb local variables. The opposite of local variables are global variables (not public variables).
Now, let's see what happens when we call a:
a() gets called, create a new stack frame. Allocate space for local variables on the stack:
The stack:
┌────────┐
│ var aa │ <── a's stack frame
╞════════╡
┆ ┆ <── caller's stack frame
a() calls b(), create a new stack frame. Allocate space for local variables on the stack:
The stack:
┌────────┐
│ var bb │ <── b's stack frame
╞════════╡
│ var aa │
╞════════╡
┆ ┆
In most programming languages, and this includes javascript, a function only has access to its own stack frame. Thus a() cannot access local variables in b() and neither can any other function or code in global scope access variables in a(). The only exception are variables in global scope. From an implementation point of view this is achieved by allocating global variables in an area of memory that does not belong to the stack. This is generally called the heap. So to complete the picture the memory at this point looks like this:
The stack: The heap:
┌────────┐ ┌────────────┐
│ var bb │ │ global_var │
╞════════╡ │ │
│ var aa │ └────────────┘
╞════════╡
┆ ┆
(as a side note, you can also allocate variables on the heap inside functions using malloc() or new)
Now b() completes and returns, it's stack frame is removed from the stack:
The stack: The heap:
┌────────┐ ┌────────────┐
│ var aa │ │ global_var │
╞════════╡ │ │
┆ ┆ └────────────┘
and when a() completes the same happens to its stack frame. This is how local variables gets allocated and freed automatically - via pushing and popping objects off the stack.
Closures:
A closure is a more advanced stack frame. But whereas normal stack frames gets deleted once a function returns, a language with closures will merely unlink the stack frame (or just the objects it contains) from the stack while keeping a reference to the stack frame for as long as it's required.
Now let's look at an example code of a language with closures:
function b {
var bb
return function {
var cc
}
}
function a {
var aa
return b()
}
Now let's see what happens if we do this:
var c = a()
First function a() is called which in turn calls b(). Stack frames are created and pushed onto the stack:
The stack:
┌────────┐
│ var bb │
╞════════╡
│ var aa │
╞════════╡
│ var c │
┆ ┆
Function b() returns, so it's stack frame is popped off the stack. But, function b() returns an anonymous function which captures bb in a closure. So we pop off the stack frame but don't delete it from memory (until all references to it has been completely garbage collected):
The stack: somewhere in RAM:
┌────────┐ ┌╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┐
│ var aa │ ┆ var bb ┆
╞════════╡ └╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┘
│ var c │
┆ ┆
a() now returns the function to c. So the stack frame of the call to b() gets linked to the variable c. Note that it's the stack frame that gets linked, not the scope. It's kind of like if you create objects from a class it's the objects that gets assigned to variables, not the class:
The stack: somewhere in RAM:
┌────────┐ ┌╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┐
│ var c╶╶├╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┆ var bb ┆
╞════════╡ └╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┘
┆ ┆
Also note that since we haven't actually called the function c(), the variable cc is not yet allocated anywhere in memory. It's currently only a scope, not yet a stack frame until we call c().
Now what happens when we call c()? A stack frame for c() is created as normal. But this time there is a difference:
The stack:
┌────────┬──────────┐
│ var cc var bb │ <──── attached closure
╞════════╤──────────┘
│ var c │
┆ ┆
The stack frame of b() is attached to the stack frame of c(). So from the point of view of function c() it's stack also contains all the variables that were created when function b() was called (Note again, not the variables in function b() but the variables created when function b() was called - in other words, not the scope of b() but the stack frame created when calling b(). The implication is that there is only one possible function b() but many calls to b() creating many stack frames).
But the rules of local and global variables still applies. All variables in b() become local variables to c() and nothing else. The function that called c() has no access to them.
What this means is that when you redefine c in the caller's scope like this:
var c = function {/* new function */}
this happens:
somewhere in RAM:
┌╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┐
┆ var bb ┆
└╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┘
The stack:
┌────────┐ ┌╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┐
│ var c╶╶├╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┆ /* new function */ ┆
╞════════╡ └╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶╶┘
┆ ┆
As you can see, it's impossible to regain access to the stack frame from the call to b() since the scope that c belongs to doesn't have access to it.
Workaround:
The workaround, since this is a binding (javascript calls it context) issue not a scope issue, is to use object binding to store your cfg object.
Unfortunately javascript doesn't have private variables. So it's only possible to bind it as a public variable. The workaround's workaround to this problem is to use Perl convention to tell other programmers not to touch that object unless they're modifying the implementation itself. And that convention is to start a variable name with underscores:
// WARNING: Private!
a._cfg = {
currency: 'GBP',
exponent: 2
};
