Skip to main content
Version: 2.x

AssociativeEither

AssociativeEither describes a way of combining two values F[A] and F[B] into a value F[Either[A, B]] that is associative.

Its signature is:

trait AssociativeEither[F[_]] {
  def either[A, B](fa: => F[A], fb: => F[B]): F[Either[A, B]]
}

If we import zio.prelude._ we can use the orElseEither operator or its symbolic alias <+> to combine any two values of a parameterized type F that have an AssociativeEither instance defined for them.

The either operator must be associative, so if we combine two values fa and fb and then combine the result with fc, that must be the same as combining fb with fc and then combining fa with the result. That is, after reassociating Either values the following property must hold:

(fa <+> fb) <+> fc === fa <+> (fb <+> fc)

This is the same associative law we saw for concrete types described by the Associative abstraction, but lifted to the context of parameterized types.

The either operator corresponds to running the left value and if that fails running the right value.

To see this, we can observe that since the either operator must return an Either[A, B] we must choose on some basis whether to return the left value or the right value. Furthermore, we must choose on some consistent basis so that the order of operations does not matter.

There are a couple of trivial ways we could do this, like always running the left value or always running the right value. However, the way we can do this that preserves information is to run the right value and then if it fails in some way to run the right value.

What it means to run the left value and then if it fails run the right value depends on the parameterized type.

For ZIO the meaning is quite straightforward. The orElseEither operator runs the left ZIO workflow and returns its result if it succeeds, otherwise it runs the right ZIO workflow and returns its result.

import zio._

def orElseEither[R, E, A, B](left: => ZIO[R, E, A], right: => ZIO[R, E, B]): ZIO[R, E, Either[A, B]] =
  left.foldZIO(_ => right.map(b => Right(b)), a => ZIO.succeed(Left(a)))

Here we run the left workflow and if it is successful we just wrap it up in a Left. If the left workflow fails we recover from its failure and run the Right effect, packaging its result up in a Right.

We can see that this is associative because no matter how many ZIO workflows we combine with orElseEither the result will always be the first one from left to right to successfully complete execution.

Notice here that if the left workflow succeeds we never run the right workflow at all or even need to construct it. The fact that either and the other binary operators in ZIO Prelude are by name gives us the freedom to model that instead of having to introduce additional interfaces.

Other data types that model failure have similar implementations of the orElseEither operator. For example, here are the implementations of orElseEither for Either and Option.

def orElseEither[E, A, B](left: => Either[E, A], => right: Either[E, B])]): Either[E, Either[A, B]] =
  left match {
    case Left(e) =>
      that match {
        case Left(e)  => Left(e)
        case Right(b) => Right(Right(b))
      }
    case Right(a) => Right(Left(a))
  }

def orElseEither[A, B](left: => Option[A], => right: Option[B])]): Option[Either[A, B]] =
  left match {
    case None =>
      that match {
        case None     => None
        case Right(b) => Some(Right(b))
      }
    case Some(a) => Some(Left(a))
  }

In both cases if the left value is a success we return its result in a Left. Otherwise if the right value is a success we return its result in a Right and if it is a failure we fail with that error.

Notice in both cases we did not need to evaluate the right value if the left value was a success. We could have just made the right parameter lazy but we could flip any of these binary operators so for correctness it is important that both arguments be lazy.

Another interpretation of orElseEither comes from collections. Consider the following implementation of the orElseEither operator for Chunk.

import zio.prelude._

implicit val ChunkAssociativeEither: AssociativeEither[Chunk] =
  new AssociativeEither[Chunk] {
    def either[A, B](as: => Chunk[A], bs: => Chunk[B]): Chunk[Either[A, B]] =
      as.map(Left(_)) ++ bs.map(Right(_))
  }
// ChunkAssociativeEither: AssociativeEither[Chunk] = repl.MdocSession$MdocApp0$$anon$1@43dfdf8c

Here we are concatenating the two Chunk values, putting the elements from the left Chunk in a Left and the elements from the right Chunk in a Right. We can think of this as running the left Chunk until it fails by running out of elements and then running the right Chunk.

We can see a similar interpretation in the implementation of the orElseEither operator for the Schedule data type from ZIO. It runs the left schedule while it wants to continue and when it stops runs the right schedule, emitting either a Left with the output of the left schedule or a Right with the output of the right schedule each time.

The AssociativeEither abstraction isn't limited to covariant data types.

Let's see how we can use the orElseEither operator to combine values of a contravariant type.

The Predicate type knows how to evaluate a value of type A to return a Boolean. This Boolean could describe whether the value of type A is valid data for example, or whether we should take some further action.

trait Predicate[-A] {
  def run(a: A): Boolean
}

We could implement an instance of the AssociativeEither abstraction for Predicate like this:

object Predicate {
  implicit val PredicateAssociativeEither: AssociativeEither[Predicate] =
    new AssociativeEither[Predicate] {
      def either[A, B](left: => Predicate[A], right: => Predicate[B]): Predicate[Either[A, B]] =
        new Predicate[Either[A, B]] {
          def run(either: Either[A, B]): Boolean =
            either match {
              case Left(a) => left.run(a)
              case Right(b) => right.run(b)
            }
        }
    }
}

The interpretation is slightly different here. Now failing means not being able to handle a value at all.

The left Predicate knows how to determine whether A values satisfy the condition and the right Predicate knows how to determine whether B values satisfy the condition. So when we get an Either[A, B] we have to match on it to determine whether it is an A that the left Predicate can handle at all.

If so, we send it to the left Predicate and return its result. Otherwise we send it to the right Predicate and return its result.

Just like the AssociativeBoth abstraction, if a data type with an AssociativeEither instance is covariant there are additional operators we can define on it.

def orElse[F[+_]: AssociativeEither : Covariant, A](fa: => F[A], fb: => F[A]): F[A] =
  fa.orElseEither(fb).map(_.merge)

The orElse operator just combines two F[A] values with orElseEither and then maps the result to merge the left and right sides of the Either. This is probably the version of the orElse operator we are most familiar with.

We can also define additional operators if a data type that has a AssociativeEither instance defined for it is contravariant.

def eitherWith[F[-_]: AssociativeEither : Contravariant, A, B, C](fa: F[A], fb: F[B])(
  f: C => Either[A, B]
): F[C] =
  fa.orElseEither(fb).contramap(f)

The eitherWith operator first converts input of type C into Either[A, B] values with contramap and the function f, then runs the fa and fb values using that input and the orElseEither operator.

For example, if our data type was a Predicate the eitherWith operator could split incoming payloads into one of two types, sending them to the appropriate predicate for evaluation and then returning the results. Of course, if we can handle a payload with two types in this way we can also handle payloads with any number of cases by repeatedly applying the eitherWith operator.

The AssociativeEither functional abstraction represents the second fundamental way of combining two values of a parameterized type. Whereas AssociativeBoth combines the A and B values into the sum type represented by (A, B), AssociativeEither combines them into the product type represented by Either[A, B].

For existing data types the orElseEither operator and its variants tend to already be implemented, often with more domain specific names, so there isn't necessarily an immediate benefit if you are working with existing data types from ZIO or the Scala standard library.

However, if you are defining your own parameterized types it can be helpful to think about what it would mean for running a value to fail and what it would mean to run another value instead. There are also operators in ZIO Prelude that are defined on types with an AssociativeEither instance, so implementing an instance for your own data type can let you take advantage of that functionality and test your implementation with the laws in ZIO Prelude.

Finally, the AssociativeEither abstraction can be quite helpful in some cases for writing generic code in terms of the abstractions in ZIO Prelude.

The combination of the ability to express running the left value and then running the right value with AssociativeBoth and running the left value and if it fails running the right value with AssociativeEither can be quite powerful. For example, we can define many parsers in this way.