# Looking at a Class's source **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [18 July 2004 17:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/looking-at-a-classs-source/12639 "2004-07-18T17:24:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Claus\_Spitzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Claus\_Spitzer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Claus_Spitzer)\ **Post date:** [18 July 2004 17:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/looking-at-a-classs-source/12639/1 "2004-07-18T17:24:39Z")
Is there a way to look at the source of a class? E.g. class Foo    def bar      # something    end        def foo      # something else    end end [0] Foo.source =\>class Foo     def bar       # something     end          def foo       # something else     end end [1] Even being able to look at a method's source would be helpful, e.g. [2] Foo.bar.source =\> def bar    # something end [3] Pretty printing is not necessary. I've looked at the built-in classes and modules and at tha standard library, and haven't been able to find anything related to this. If there is no way to do such thing then a simple "no" is sufficient, I'm just curious as to whether it is possible or not. Cheers!    -CWS ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler5](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/austin_ziegler5/32/1985_2.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)\ **Post date:** [18 July 2004 19:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/looking-at-a-classs-source/12639/2 "2004-07-18T19:51:46Z")
Not without going back to the actual source files. Ruby does not keep any form of the source itself around after parsing. -austin > **···** > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:24:39 +0900, Claus Spitzer \ wrote: > > > Is there a way to look at the source of a class? E.g. ---
**Author:** ![Claus\_Spitzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Claus\_Spitzer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Claus_Spitzer)\ **Post date:** [18 July 2004 20:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/looking-at-a-classs-source/12639/3 "2004-07-18T20:24:52Z")
Alright, understandable. Now the one question that remains (sorry for being nit-picky) is if it would be possible to desonstruct objects. After all, there has to be some place (possibly the metaclass) where it says that Foo.bar class Foo def bar( in )    in + 1 end end does in+1, right? Cheers    -CWS > **···** > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:51:46 +0900, Austin Ziegler \ wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:24:39 +0900, Claus Spitzer \> \ wrote: > > \> Is there a way to look at the source of a class? E.g. > > > > Not without going back to the actual source files. Ruby does not keep > > any form of the source itself around after parsing. > > > > -austin ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler5](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/austin_ziegler5/32/1985_2.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)\ **Post date:** [18 July 2004 20:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/looking-at-a-classs-source/12639/4 "2004-07-18T20:54:48Z")
I'm not understanding your question. Ruby interprets the code into an AST; if you know how to read the AST, then you may be able to figure that out. However, you're not going to be able to do that in Ruby "proper" (you'll need something like evil.rb which uses Ruby/DL, or some of the other tools out there). -austin > **···** > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:24:52 +0900, Claus Spitzer \ wrote: > > > Alright, understandable. Now the one question that remains (sorry for > > being nit-picky) is if it would be possible to desonstruct objects. > > After all, there has to be some place (possibly the metaclass) where > > it says that Foo.bar > > > > class Foo > > def bar( in ) > >    in + 1 > > end > > end > > > > does in+1, right? Cheers > > -- > Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com >                \* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca ---
**Author:** ![Claus\_Spitzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Claus\_Spitzer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Claus_Spitzer)\ **Post date:** [18 July 2004 21:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/looking-at-a-classs-source/12639/5 "2004-07-18T21:47:38Z")
Aha. I'll look into it, thanks. > **···** > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:54:48 +0900, Austin Ziegler \ wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:24:52 +0900, Claus Spitzer \> \ wrote: > > \> Alright, understandable. Now the one question that remains (sorry for > > \> being nit-picky) is if it would be possible to desonstruct objects. > > \> After all, there has to be some place (possibly the metaclass) where > > \> it says that Foo.bar > > \> > > \> class Foo > > \> def bar( in ) > > \> in + 1 > > \> end > > \> end > > \> > > \> does in+1, right? Cheers > > > > I'm not understanding your question. Ruby interprets the code into an > > AST; if you know how to read the AST, then you may be able to figure > > that out. However, you're not going to be able to do that in Ruby > > "proper" (you'll need something like evil.rb which uses Ruby/DL, or > > some of the other tools out there). > > > > -austin > > -- > > Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com > >                \* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca