# reflection
class Talker
# simple
def sayYourClassName
puts self.class.name # the 'self' is optional here
endomitting "self" (puts class.name) leads to an error
I checked this one myself, because it surprised me when you said it. You're right of course. I'm assuming it's because class is a method name and a Ruby keyword.
# advanced
# caller returns a stack (array) of strings of the form # file:linenumber in `method'
# so we extract the most recent one and parse the method name out
# code from PLEAC
def thisMethodName
caller[0] =~ /in `([^']+)'/ ? $1 : '(anonymous)';
endI understand the concept.
is there possibly a more direct solution available, with cleaner code and a stable/higher execution speed?
Have you measured it and proven it too slow? Remember, premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming. 
I'm not sure what you consider "clean", but getting rid of the ternary operator may make it a little more readable:
if caller[0] =~ /in `([^']+)'/ then $1 else '(anonymous)' end
# expert
def sayYourClassDefinition
puts "Class:"
sayYourClassNameputs "Class #{self.class.name}" >> Class Talker
but
puts "Class #{sayYourClassName}" >> Talker Class
puts "Class " + sayYourClassName.to_s >> Talker Classwhy?
In the first example, you're asking Ruby for the class name, which you add to a string that gets printed by the local call to puts. In the other two, you're calling a method that prints the class name immediately. Then the local puts prints "Class " and the return value from the method call, which isn't meaningful in this context.
# %{} is another way to write a string literal
#{} - inside strings
%{} - outside of strings
No, these are not equivalent. #{...} is for interpolating Ruby code inside a string. %{...} defined a double quoted string, without the quotes:
%{This is a string. I can use "quotes" in here. And #{"interpolate"} values.}
# (looks neat for multiline strings)
# we use the standard 'inspect' method to print out arrays of # method names in a ["meth1", "meth2", ...] format
puts %{
Methods:
public:
#{public_methods.inspect}
protected
#{protected_methods.inspect}
private:
#{private_methods.inspect}
non-inherited:
#{(methods - self.class.superclass.instance_methods).inspect}
Instance Variables:
#{instance_variables.inspect}
}Can I get somehow a more precise reflection of the class definition (output similar to the original class-def, excluding code)?
I don't believe so, no. Remember that a Ruby class can be reopened and definitions added to it. That means a class could be built up from many places.
Ruby does have a means to get it to store the source code it reads, but I don't believe that's what you were asking for.
James Edward Gray II
···
Begin forwarded message: