I'm finding the following pattern popping up repeatedly in my code, and my intuition says there must be some idiomatic Scala way to better express this (Monadic or otherwise):
val someCollection: Seq[Thing] = ...
val makeBlah: Seq[Thing] => Blah = ...
...
if (someCollection.nonEmpty) Some(makeBlah(someCollection)) else None
To be more specific, I'm looking for something along the lines of what you can do with Option[T]:
val someOption: Option[Thing] = ...
val makeBlah: Thing => Blah = ...
...
val result: Option[Blah] = someOption.map(makeBlah)
...but with evaluation semantics based on some predicate rather than Some/None pattern matching in map.
While the example above uses a collection--first performing a test on it, optionally followed by an operation--I don't mean to imply a collections specific use case. You could imagine a case where Boolean is lifted or coerced into some monad:
val aThing: Thing = ...
val makeBlah: Thing => Blah = ...
val thingTest: Thing => Boolean ...
// theoretical
implicit def optionOnBoolean(b: Boolean): MonadOps[Option[Boolean]] = ...
...
// NB: map could either have a Boolean parameter
// that's always true, or be Unit.
// Neither seem like good design
val result: Option[Blah] = thingTest(aThing).map(makeBlah(aThing))
Intuitively this seems like a bad idea to me because it explicitly splits the data flow since you don't really have anything to pass via map.
When looking for a general approach that has "monadic-like" behavior without a closure to capture data, one has to answer the question of what to pass to map and how its connection to the predicate. Here's the type of construct that comes to mind:
val thing: Thing = ....
val makeBlah: Thing => Blah = ...
val thingTest: (Thing) => Boolean = ...
val result: Option[Blah] = WhenOption(thing, thingTest).map(makeBlah)
My question: Does something already exist in Scala proper, or does one have to venture out to Scalaz to get this sort of construct?
Or is there some other approach that is customary/idiomatic Scala?
Edit: My question is close to Scala - "if(true) Some(1)" without having to type "else None" but I wish to address the issue of achieving it without a closure.
For completeness:
val someCollection: Seq[Thing] = ...
val makeBlah: Seq[Thing] => Blah = ...
You can use some methods on Option:
Some(someCollection).filterNot(_.isEmpty).map(makeBlah)
or as for comprehension
for(sc <- Some(someCollection) if !someCollection.isEmpty) yield makeBla(sc)
or as pattern match
someCollection match {
case Seq() => None
case x => Some(makeBlah(x))
}
But I think the if-then-else approach is the most readable one.
I would just continue doing what you're doing unless you find yourself repeating that same logic ad nauseum within the same function scope. It's readable and makes sense. That said, if you really need to, you can "lift" a PartialFunction (see here):
def foo: PartialFunction[Seq[A], B]
def fooLifted: (Seq[A] => Option[B]) = foo.lift
Now all you have to do is make your conditional logic explicit
def foo ={
case seq if predicate(seq) => doStuff(seq)
}
This is a lot more boilerplate than what you're doing.
FWIW, I do the same thing you propose:
implicit class RichBoolean(val b: Boolean) extends AnyVal {
def map[T](f: => T): Option[T] = if (b) Some(f) else None
def flatMap[T](f: => Option[T]): Option[T] = if (b) f else None
}
"map" doesn't feel right here, but I can't think of anything better. I really like this construct, it can really help keep the "flow" when doing a few consecutive operations on your data.
Related
I am trying to use Cats datatype Ior to accumulate both errors and successes of using a service (which can return an error).
def find(key: String): F[Ior[NonEmptyList[Error], A]] = {
(for {
b <- service.findByKey(key)
} yield b.rightIor[NonEmptyList[Error]])
.recover {
case e: Error => Ior.leftNel(AnotherError)
}
}
def findMultiple(keys: List[String]): F[Ior[NonEmptyList[Error], List[A]]] = {
keys map find reduce (_ |+| _)
}
My confusion lies in how to combine the errors/successes. I am trying to use the Semigroup combine (infix syntax) to combine with no success. Is there a better way to do this? Any help would be great.
I'm going to assume that you want both all errors and all successful results. Here's a possible implementation:
class Foo[F[_]: Applicative, A](find: String => F[IorNel[Error, A]]) {
def findMultiple(keys: List[String]): F[IorNel[Error, List[A]]] = {
keys.map(find).sequence.map { nelsList =>
nelsList.map(nel => nel.map(List(_)))
.reduceOption(_ |+| _).getOrElse(Nil.rightIor)
}
}
}
Let's break it down:
We will be trying to "flip" a List[IorNel[Error, A]] into IorNel[Error, List[A]]. However, from doing keys.map(find) we get List[F[IorNel[...]]], so we need to also "flip" it in a similar fashion first. That can be done by using .sequence on the result, and is what forces F[_]: Applicative constraint.
N.B. Applicative[Future] is available whenever there's an implicit ExecutionContext in scope. You can also get rid of F and use Future.sequence directly.
Now, we have F[List[IorNel[Error, A]]], so we want to map the inner part to transform the nelsList we got. You might think that sequence could be used there too, but it can not - it has the "short-circuit on first error" behavior, so we'd lose all successful values. Let's try to use |+| instead.
Ior[X, Y] has a Semigroup instance when both X and Y have one. Since we're using IorNel, X = NonEmptyList[Z], and that is satisfied. For Y = A - your domain type - it might not be available.
But we don't want to combine all results into a single A, we want Y = List[A] (which also always has a semigroup). So, we take every IorNel[Error, A] we have and map A to a singleton List[A]:
nelsList.map(nel => nel.map(List(_)))
This gives us List[IorNel[Error, List[A]], which we can reduce. Unfortunately, since Ior does not have a Monoid, we can't quite use convenient syntax. So, with stdlib collections, one way is to do .reduceOption(_ |+| _).getOrElse(Nil.rightIor).
This can be improved by doing few things:
x.map(f).sequence is equivalent to doing x.traverse(f)
We can demand that keys are non-empty upfront, and give nonempty result back too.
The latter step gives us Reducible instance for a collection, letting us shorten everything by doing reduceMap
class Foo2[F[_]: Applicative, A](find: String => F[IorNel[Error, A]]) {
def findMultiple(keys: NonEmptyList[String]): F[IorNel[Error, NonEmptyList[A]]] = {
keys.traverse(find).map { nelsList =>
nelsList.reduceMap(nel => nel.map(NonEmptyList.one))
}
}
}
Of course, you can make a one-liner out of this:
keys.traverse(find).map(_.reduceMap(_.map(NonEmptyList.one)))
Or, you can do the non-emptiness check inside:
class Foo3[F[_]: Applicative, A](find: String => F[IorNel[Error, A]]) {
def findMultiple(keys: List[String]): F[IorNel[Error, List[A]]] = {
NonEmptyList.fromList(keys)
.map(_.traverse(find).map { _.reduceMap(_.map(List(_))) })
.getOrElse(List.empty[A].rightIor.pure[F])
}
}
Ior is a good choice for warning accumulation, that is errors and a successful value. But, as mentioned by Oleg Pyzhcov, Ior.Left case is short-circuiting. This example illustrates it:
scala> val shortCircuitingErrors = List(
Ior.leftNec("error1"),
Ior.bothNec("warning2", 2),
Ior.bothNec("warning3", 3)
).sequence
shortCircuitingErrors: Ior[Nec[String], List[Int]]] = Left(Chain(error1))
One way to accumulate both errors and successes is to convert all your Left cases into Both. One approach is using Option as right type and converting Left(errs) values into Both(errs, None). After calling .traverse, you end up with optList: List[Option] on the right side and you can flatten it with optList.flatMap(_.toList) to filter out None values.
class Error
class KeyValue
def find(key: String): Ior[Nel[Error], KeyValue] = ???
def findMultiple(keys: List[String]): Ior[Nel[Error], List[KeyValue]] =
keys
.traverse { k =>
val ior = find(k)
ior.putRight(ior.right)
}
.map(_.flatMap(_.toList))
Or more succinctly:
def findMultiple(keys: List[String]): Ior[Nel[Error], List[KeyValue]] =
keys.flatTraverse { k =>
val ior = find(k)
ior.putRight(ior.toList) // Ior[A,B].toList: List[B]
}
Is it possible to run multiple extractors in one match statement?
object CoolStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[SomeInfo] = ...
}
object NeatStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[OtherInfo] = ...
}
// is there some syntax similar to this?
thing match {
case t # CoolStuff(someInfo) # NeatStuff(otherInfo) => process(someInfo, otherInfo)
case _ => // neither Cool nor Neat
}
The intent here being that there are two extractors, and I don't have to do something like this:
object CoolNeatStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[(SomeInfo, OtherInfo)] = thing match {
case CoolStuff(someInfo) => thing match {
case NeatStuff(otherInfo) => Some(someInfo -> otherInfo)
case _ => None // Cool, but not Neat
case _ => None// neither Cool nor Neat
}
}
Can try
object ~ {
def unapply[T](that: T): Option[(T,T)] = Some(that -> that)
}
def too(t: Thing) = t match {
case CoolStuff(a) ~ NeatStuff(b) => ???
}
I've come up with a very similar solution, but I was a bit too slow, so I didn't post it as an answer. However, since #userunknown asks to explain how it works, I'll dump my similar code here anyway, and add a few comments. Maybe someone finds it a valuable addition to cchantep's minimalistic solution (it looks... calligraphic? for some reason, in a good sense).
So, here is my similar, aesthetically less pleasing proposal:
object && {
def unapply[A](a: A) = Some((a, a))
}
// added some definitions to make your question-code work
type Thing = String
type SomeInfo = String
type OtherInfo = String
object CoolStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[SomeInfo] = Some(thing.toLowerCase)
}
object NeatStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[OtherInfo] = Some(thing.toUpperCase)
}
def process(a: SomeInfo, b: OtherInfo) = s"[$a, $b]"
val res = "helloworld" match {
case CoolStuff(someInfo) && NeatStuff(otherInfo) =>
process(someInfo, otherInfo)
case _ =>
}
println(res)
This prints
[helloworld, HELLOWORLD]
The idea is that identifiers (in particular, && and ~ in cchantep's code) can be used as infix operators in patterns. Therefore, the match-case
case CoolStuff(someInfo) && NeatStuff(otherInfo) =>
will be desugared into
case &&(CoolStuff(someInfo), NeatStuff(otherInfo)) =>
and then the unapply method method of && will be invoked which simply duplicates its input.
In my code, the duplication is achieved by a straightforward Some((a, a)). In cchantep's code, it is done with fewer parentheses: Some(t -> t). The arrow -> comes from ArrowAssoc, which in turn is provided as an implicit conversion in Predef. This is just a quick way to create pairs, usually used in maps:
Map("hello" -> 42, "world" -> 58)
Another remark: notice that && can be used multiple times:
case Foo(a) && Bar(b) && Baz(c) => ...
So... I don't know whether it's an answer or an extended comment to cchantep's answer, but maybe someone finds it useful.
For those who might miss the details on how this magic actually works, just want to expand the answer by #cchantep anf #Andrey Tyukin (comment section does not allow me to do that).
Running scalac with -Xprint:parser option will give something along those lines (scalac 2.11.12)
def too(t: String) = t match {
case $tilde(CoolStuff((a # _)), NeatStuff((b # _))) => $qmark$qmark$qmark
}
This basically shows you the initial steps compiler does while parsing source into AST.
Important Note here is that the rules why compiler makes this transformation are described in Infix Operation Patterns and Extractor Patterns. In particular, this allows you to use any object as long as it has unapply method, like for example CoolStuff(a) AndAlso NeatStuff(b). In previous answers && and ~ were picked up as also possible but not the only available valid identifiers.
If running scalac with option -Xprint:patmat which is a special phase for translating pattern matching one can see something similar to this
def too(t: String): Nothing = {
case <synthetic> val x1: String = t;
case9(){
<synthetic> val o13: Option[(String, String)] = main.this.~.unapply[String](x1);
if (o13.isEmpty.unary_!)
{
<synthetic> val p3: String = o13.get._1;
<synthetic> val p4: String = o13.get._2;
{
<synthetic> val o12: Option[String] = main.this.CoolStuff.unapply(p3);
if (o12.isEmpty.unary_!)
{
<synthetic> val o11: Option[String] = main.this.NeatStuff.unapply(p4);
if (o11.isEmpty.unary_!)
matchEnd8(scala.this.Predef.???)
Here ~.unapply will be called on input parameter t which will produce Some((t,t)). The tuple values will be extracted into variables p3 and p4. Then, CoolStuff.unapply(p3) will be called and if the result is not None NeatStuff.unapply(p4) will be called and also checked if it is not empty. If both are not empty then according to Variable Patterns a and b will be bound to returned results inside corresponding Some.
I have a sequence of parameters. For each parameter I have to perform DB query, which may or may not return a result. Simply speaking, I need to stop after the first result is non-empty. Of course, I would like to avoid doing unnecessary calls. The caveat is - I need to have this operation(s) contained as a another Future - or any "most reactive" approach.
Speaking of code:
//that what I have
def dbQuery(p:Param): Future[Option[Result]] = {}
//my list of params
val input = Seq(p1,p2,p3)
//that what I need to implements
def getFirstNonEmpty(params:Seq[Param]): Future[Option[Result]]
I know I can possibly just wrap entire function in yet another Future and execute code sequentially (Await? Brrr...), but that not the cleanest solution.
Can I somehow create lazy initialized collection of futures, like
params.map ( p => FutureWhichWontStartUnlessAskedWhichWrapsOtherFuture { dbQuery(p) }).findFirst(!_.isEmpty())
I believe it's possible!
What do you think about something like this?
def getFirstNonEmpty(params: Seq[Param]): Future[Option[Result]] = {
params.foldLeft(Future.successful(Option.empty[Result])) { (accuFtrOpt, param) =>
accuFtrOpt.flatMap {
case None => dbQuery(param)
case result => Future.successful(result)
}
}
}
This might be overkill, but if you are open to using scalaz we can do this using OptionT and foldMap.
With OptionT we sort of combine Future and Option into one structure. We can get the first of two Futures with a non-empty result using OptionT.orElse.
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
val someF: Future[Option[Int]] = Future.successful(Some(1))
val noneF: Future[Option[Int]] = Future.successful(None)
val first = OptionT(noneF) orElse OptionT(someF)
first.run // Future[Option[Int]] = Success(Some(1))
We could now get the first non-empty Future from a List with reduce from the standard library (this will however run all the Futures) :
List(noneF, noneF, someF).map(OptionT.apply).reduce(_ orElse _).run
But with a List (or other collection) we can't be sure that there is at least one element, so we need to use fold and pass a start value. Scalaz can do this work for us by using a Monoid. The Monoid[OptionT[Future, Int]] we will use will supply the start value and combine the Futures with the orElse used above.
type Param = Int
type Result = Int
type FutureO[x] = OptionT[Future, x]
def query(p: Param): Future[Option[Result]] =
Future.successful{ println(p); if (p > 2) Some(p) else None }
def getFirstNonEmpty(params: List[Param]): Future[Option[Result]] = {
implicit val monoid = PlusEmpty[FutureO].monoid[Result]
params.foldMap(p => OptionT(query(p))).run
}
val result = getFirstNonEmpty(List(1,2,3,4))
// prints 1, 2, 3
result.foreach(println) // Some(3)
This is an old question, but if someone comes looking for an answer, here is my take. I solved it for a use case that required me to loop through a limited number of futures sequentially and stop when the first of them returned a result.
I did not need a library for my use-case, a light-weight combination of recursion and pattern matching was sufficient. Although the question here does not have the same problem as a sequence of futures, looping through a sequence of parameters would be similar.
Here would be the pseudo-code based on recursion.
I have not compiled this, fix the types being matched/returned.
def getFirstNonEmpty(params: Seq[Param]): Future[Option[Result]] = {
if (params.isEmpty) {
Future.successful(None)
} else {
val head = params.head
dbQuery(head) match {
case Some(v) => Future.successful(Some(v))
case None => getFirstNonEmpty(params.tail)
}
}
}
I have posted quite several questions about failure handling in Scala and I really thank you all for your answers.
I understand my options when dealing with Either and Scalaz or a for comprehension, and I have another (last?) question:
How to do a fail-fast sequence of operations when the operations are dealing with the outside non-functional world, like a DB?
I mean I have a method like that:
def insertItem(item: Item): Either[Error,Item]
Thanks to Either and these answers, I know how to do it with Either: Chaining method calls with Either and
Method parameters validation in Scala, with for comprehension and monads
But my Item case class is immutable and it doesn't really make sense to return it as a Right since the caller already has the value.
Thus how can I do the same kind of thing with:
def insertItem(item: Item): Option[Error]
In my application, when an user is created, we also create some items for him.
If an item fails to create, then the whole process should stop.
When I use directly Option[Error] in a for comprehension, I don't think I'll get the result I expect.
I guess it makes sense to do something like that:
for {
_ <- insertItem(item1).toLeft("???").right
_ <- insertItem(item2).toLeft("???").right
_ <- insertItem(item3).toLeft("???").right
}
But as the values "???" I put in my Right are never useful, I guess I'm missing the elegant solution which do not involve creating Rights that will never be used.
I think I'm looking for something that will continue the for comprehension only when the result is None, which is kind of weird because I just want to continue to the next operation, and not do a real map operation.
By the way, if possible, I would like both non-Scalaz and Scalaz solutions.
I'm not sure Scalaz handle such things, because it seems more focused on real functional programming and perhaps do not provide code for side-effect behaviors like my use case?
I don't see a principled reason not to use Either[Error, Unit] in a case like this (or at least I've done it, and I don't feel guilty about it). Say we have the following:
def launch(thing: String): Either[String, Unit] = Either.cond(
thing.nonEmpty,
println("Launching the " + thing),
"Need something to launch!"
)
We can show that the right projection monad is appropriately lazy:
scala> for {
| _ <- launch("flowers").right
| _ <- launch("").right
| r <- launch("MISSILES").right
| } yield r
Launching the flowers
res1: Either[String,Unit] = Left(Need something to launch!)
No missiles get launched, as desired.
It's worth noting that if you use Option instead of Either, the operation you're describing is just the sum given the "First" monoid instance for Option (where the addition operation is just orElse). For example, we can write the following with Scalaz 7:
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
def fst[A](x: Option[A]): Option[A] ## Tags.First = Tag(x)
def launch(thing: String): Option[String] = if (thing.isEmpty) Some(
"Need something to launch!"
) else {
println("Launching the " + thing)
None
}
And now:
scala> val r: Option[String] = fst(launch("flowers")) |+| fst(
| launch("")) |+| fst(launch("MISSILES"))
Launching the flowers
r: Option[String] = Some(Need something to launch!)
Once again, no missiles.
We do something similar where I work with scalaz to fail fast with message sending, though this is not idiomatic scalaz:
def insertItem(item: Item): Validation[Error, Unit]
val result = for {
_ <- insertItem(item1)
_ <- insertItem(item2)
_ <- insertItem(item3)
} yield Unit
If you want to chain together methods that contain Option[Error] and only execute the next step if the Option is None, you can use orElse for that.
If you are only interested in the first failure, than an Iterator can be your choice:
case class Item(i: Int)
case class Error(i: Item)
val items = Iterator(1,3,7,-5,-2,0) map Item
def insertItem(item: Item): Option[Error] =
if (item.i < 0) Some(Error(item)) else None
scala> val error = (items map insertItem find (_.isDefined)).flatten
error: Option[Error] = Some(Error(Item(-5)))
If insertItem is not your only method it is possible to call them separated with your values:
val items = Iterator(
() => insertItem(i1),
() => deleteItem(i2),
() => insertItem(i3),
() => updateItem(i4))
In Scala, I have progressively lost my Java/C habit of thinking in a control-flow oriented way, and got used to go ahead and get the object I'm interested in first, and then usually apply something like a match or a map() or foreach() for collections. I like it a lot, since it now feels like a more natural and more to-the-point way of structuring my code.
Little by little, I've wished I could program the same way for conditions; i.e., obtain a Boolean value first, and then match it to do various things. A full-blown match, however, does seem a bit overkill for this task.
Compare:
obj.isSomethingValid match {
case true => doX
case false => doY
}
vs. what I would write with style closer to Java:
if (obj.isSomethingValid)
doX
else
doY
Then I remembered Smalltalk's ifTrue: and ifFalse: messages (and variants thereof). Would it be possible to write something like this in Scala?
obj.isSomethingValid ifTrue doX else doY
with variants:
val v = obj.isSomethingValid ifTrue someVal else someOtherVal
// with side effects
obj.isSomethingValid ifFalse {
numInvalid += 1
println("not valid")
}
Furthermore, could this style be made available to simple, two-state types like Option? I know the more idiomatic way to use Option is to treat it as a collection and call filter(), map(), exists() on it, but often, at the end, I find that I want to perform some doX if it is defined, and some doY if it isn't. Something like:
val ok = resultOpt ifSome { result =>
println("Obtained: " + result)
updateUIWith(result) // returns Boolean
} else {
numInvalid += 1
println("missing end result")
false
}
To me, this (still?) looks better than a full-blown match.
I am providing a base implementation I came up with; general comments on this style/technique and/or better implementations are welcome!
First: we probably cannot reuse else, as it is a keyword, and using the backticks to force it to be seen as an identifier is rather ugly, so I'll use otherwise instead.
Here's an implementation attempt. First, use the pimp-my-library pattern to add ifTrue and ifFalse to Boolean. They are parametrized on the return type R and accept a single by-name parameter, which should be evaluated if the specified condition is realized. But in doing so, we must allow for an otherwise call. So we return a new object called Otherwise0 (why 0 is explained later), which stores a possible intermediate result as a Option[R]. It is defined if the current condition (ifTrue or ifFalse) is realized, and is empty otherwise.
class BooleanWrapper(b: Boolean) {
def ifTrue[R](f: => R) = new Otherwise0[R](if (b) Some(f) else None)
def ifFalse[R](f: => R) = new Otherwise0[R](if (b) None else Some(f))
}
implicit def extendBoolean(b: Boolean): BooleanWrapper = new BooleanWrapper(b)
For now, this works and lets me write
someTest ifTrue {
println("OK")
}
But, without the following otherwise clause, it cannot return a value of type R, of course. So here's the definition of Otherwise0:
class Otherwise0[R](intermediateResult: Option[R]) {
def otherwise[S >: R](f: => S) = intermediateResult.getOrElse(f)
def apply[S >: R](f: => S) = otherwise(f)
}
It evaluates its passed named argument if and only if the intermediate result it got from the preceding ifTrue or ifFalse is undefined, which is exactly what is wanted. The type parametrization [S >: R] has the effect that S is inferred to be the most specific common supertype of the actual type of the named parameters, such that for instance, r in this snippet has an inferred type Fruit:
class Fruit
class Apple extends Fruit
class Orange extends Fruit
val r = someTest ifTrue {
new Apple
} otherwise {
new Orange
}
The apply() alias even allows you to skip the otherwise method name altogether for short chunks of code:
someTest.ifTrue(10).otherwise(3)
// equivalently:
someTest.ifTrue(10)(3)
Finally, here's the corresponding pimp for Option:
class OptionExt[A](option: Option[A]) {
def ifNone[R](f: => R) = new Otherwise1(option match {
case None => Some(f)
case Some(_) => None
}, option.get)
def ifSome[R](f: A => R) = new Otherwise0(option match {
case Some(value) => Some(f(value))
case None => None
})
}
implicit def extendOption[A](opt: Option[A]): OptionExt[A] = new OptionExt[A](opt)
class Otherwise1[R, A1](intermediateResult: Option[R], arg1: => A1) {
def otherwise[S >: R](f: A1 => S) = intermediateResult.getOrElse(f(arg1))
def apply[S >: R](f: A1 => S) = otherwise(f)
}
Note that we now also need Otherwise1 so that we can conveniently passed the unwrapped value not only to the ifSome function argument, but also to the function argument of an otherwise following an ifNone.
You may be looking at the problem too specifically. You would probably be better off with the pipe operator:
class Piping[A](a: A) { def |>[B](f: A => B) = f(a) }
implicit def pipe_everything[A](a: A) = new Piping(a)
Now you can
("fish".length > 5) |> (if (_) println("Hi") else println("Ho"))
which, admittedly, is not quite as elegant as what you're trying to achieve, but it has the great advantage of being amazingly versatile--any time you want to put an argument first (not just with booleans), you can use it.
Also, you already can use options the way you want:
Option("fish").filter(_.length > 5).
map (_ => println("Hi")).
getOrElse(println("Ho"))
Just because these things could take a return value doesn't mean you have to avoid them. It does take a little getting used to the syntax; this may be a valid reason to create your own implicits. But the core functionality is there. (If you do create your own, consider fold[B](f: A => B)(g: => B) instead; once you're used to it the lack of the intervening keyword is actually rather nice.)
Edit: Although the |> notation for pipe is somewhat standard, I actually prefer use as the method name, because then def reuse[B,C](f: A => B)(g: (A,B) => C) = g(a,f(a)) seems more natural.
Why don't just use it like this:
val idiomaticVariable = if (condition) {
firstExpression
} else {
secondExpression
}
?
IMO, its very idiomatic! :)