Javascript equivalent for java.lang.Character.getNumericValue(char ch) method
Javascript's charCodeAt() method gives ASCII equivalent value for the characters (like 65 to 90 for 'A' to 'Z'). Is there any Javascript method equivalent for Java's Character.getNumericValue() method, which returns int value that the specified Unicode character represents? (Eg. It returns 10 to 35 for 'A' to 'Z')
javascript java
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
add a comment |
Javascript's charCodeAt() method gives ASCII equivalent value for the characters (like 65 to 90 for 'A' to 'Z'). Is there any Javascript method equivalent for Java's Character.getNumericValue() method, which returns int value that the specified Unicode character represents? (Eg. It returns 10 to 35 for 'A' to 'Z')
javascript java
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
add a comment |
Javascript's charCodeAt() method gives ASCII equivalent value for the characters (like 65 to 90 for 'A' to 'Z'). Is there any Javascript method equivalent for Java's Character.getNumericValue() method, which returns int value that the specified Unicode character represents? (Eg. It returns 10 to 35 for 'A' to 'Z')
javascript java
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
Javascript's charCodeAt() method gives ASCII equivalent value for the characters (like 65 to 90 for 'A' to 'Z'). Is there any Javascript method equivalent for Java's Character.getNumericValue() method, which returns int value that the specified Unicode character represents? (Eg. It returns 10 to 35 for 'A' to 'Z')
javascript java
javascript java
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:56
Ivan Aracki
1,75142640
1,75142640
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
asked Dec 31 '18 at 10:58
AbiramiAbirami
435
435
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
parseInt will do that if you tell it to use base 36:
console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35If you want (and you aren't writing a library or module that others will mix into their code), you could even add getNumericValue to String.prototype:
Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10It's best not to extend built-in prototypes when writing libraries or modules that will be mixed into code you don't directly control, since if everyone did it, conflicts can arise. And if extending a built-in prototype, it's important to use Object.defineProperty so the property isn't enumerable (the default for enumerable is false). Even in your own codebase, it's usually best not to extend Object.prototype at all (not even with non-enumerable properties).
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53986658%2fjavascript-equivalent-for-java-lang-character-getnumericvaluechar-ch-method%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
parseInt will do that if you tell it to use base 36:
console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35If you want (and you aren't writing a library or module that others will mix into their code), you could even add getNumericValue to String.prototype:
Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10It's best not to extend built-in prototypes when writing libraries or modules that will be mixed into code you don't directly control, since if everyone did it, conflicts can arise. And if extending a built-in prototype, it's important to use Object.defineProperty so the property isn't enumerable (the default for enumerable is false). Even in your own codebase, it's usually best not to extend Object.prototype at all (not even with non-enumerable properties).
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
add a comment |
parseInt will do that if you tell it to use base 36:
console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35If you want (and you aren't writing a library or module that others will mix into their code), you could even add getNumericValue to String.prototype:
Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10It's best not to extend built-in prototypes when writing libraries or modules that will be mixed into code you don't directly control, since if everyone did it, conflicts can arise. And if extending a built-in prototype, it's important to use Object.defineProperty so the property isn't enumerable (the default for enumerable is false). Even in your own codebase, it's usually best not to extend Object.prototype at all (not even with non-enumerable properties).
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
add a comment |
parseInt will do that if you tell it to use base 36:
console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35If you want (and you aren't writing a library or module that others will mix into their code), you could even add getNumericValue to String.prototype:
Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10It's best not to extend built-in prototypes when writing libraries or modules that will be mixed into code you don't directly control, since if everyone did it, conflicts can arise. And if extending a built-in prototype, it's important to use Object.defineProperty so the property isn't enumerable (the default for enumerable is false). Even in your own codebase, it's usually best not to extend Object.prototype at all (not even with non-enumerable properties).
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
parseInt will do that if you tell it to use base 36:
console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35If you want (and you aren't writing a library or module that others will mix into their code), you could even add getNumericValue to String.prototype:
Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10It's best not to extend built-in prototypes when writing libraries or modules that will be mixed into code you don't directly control, since if everyone did it, conflicts can arise. And if extending a built-in prototype, it's important to use Object.defineProperty so the property isn't enumerable (the default for enumerable is false). Even in your own codebase, it's usually best not to extend Object.prototype at all (not even with non-enumerable properties).
console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35console.log(parseInt("A", 36)); // 10
console.log(parseInt("Z", 36)); // 35Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, "getNumericValue", {
value() {
return parseInt(this, 36);
},
writable: true,
configurable: true
});
console.log("A".getNumericValue()); // 10answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
answered Dec 31 '18 at 11:01
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
685k12112181311
685k12112181311
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
add a comment |
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
The case against extending built-in prototypes also relates to it being really slow compared to the direct procedural approach because the receiver has to be wrapped into an object to make the method call. jsperf.com/negative-modulo/2 .Overall, great answer
– Almost Handsome
Dec 31 '18 at 12:08
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
@AlmostHandsome - You can prevent that object wrapping and its associated cost by using strict mode when defining the prototype function: jsperf.com/negative-modulo/17 (Doesn't matter if it's called from loose mode, just matters that it be defined in strict.) In strict mode, it's a dead heat in Chrome and Firefox (looks like Edge still has work to do in that regard, assuming they continue to use Chakra after switching over to Chromium for everything else...). :-) (Not that I'm advocating the prototype approach.)
– T.J. Crowder
Dec 31 '18 at 12:30
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53986658%2fjavascript-equivalent-for-java-lang-character-getnumericvaluechar-ch-method%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
