Right now I have many params that can be none, and I want to assign the whole expressiona default value.
Right now I'm doing things like
var name: Option[String] = None
var surname: Option[String] = Some("Smith")
val fullName:String = {
name.map { name =>
surname.map { surname =>
surname + ", " + name
}.getOrElse("unknown")
}.getOrElse("unknown")
}
but it's a bit too verbose. I'd like to know what would be a more idiomatic and elegant way to handle it, ideally it would be something like (it's pseudo code, of course!):
val fullName = (name + ", " + surname).getOrElse("unknown")
or something similar...
(just avoiding the double .getOrElse would be great...)
How about this
scala> val fullName = (for(n <-name;s <-surname) yield n + s).getOrElse("unknown")
fullName: String = unknown
You might want to learn a bit about applicative functors, as the same pattern can be used in all sorts of ways. Using scalaz, there is the applicative builder:
(name |#| surname)(_ + _)
What is going on is this:
(M[A] |#| M[B])(fabc) ~> M[C] //fabc is a function f: (A, B) => C
That is, the function f is being lifted into the realm of applicative functor M. This is particularly useful because it works with Option, Validation, Promise, List, Stream and many more. That is, just as you might use the expression:
(name |#| surname)(_ + _)
where name and surname are both Option[String], you could switch them to be ValidationNEL[Exception, String] or Promise[String] and the code would still do the exact same thing (appropriate to the higher kind being used). This is very powerful.
I've found this way:
val fullname = (name, surname) match {
case (Some(x), Some(y)) => x + ", " + y
case _ => "unknonw"
}
but it's still a bit verbose
Related
I'm trying to find a concise way to format a String with an Option[String] in Scala. I have a title String and a subtitle Option[String]. Here's what I have but I feel like there has to be a better way:
"Title%s".format(subtitle match
{case Some(s) => ": %s".format(s)
case None => "" })
So if I have a subtitle, I want "Title: Subtitle", but if subtitle is None, I just want "Title".
subtitle map (t => s"Title: $t") getOrElse ("Title")
String interpolation is more safe than format because if you don't use correct variable name, or missuse it somehow it will fail at compile time. format will fail at run time if the number of placeholders or their types do not match format arguments.
Your version of Scala must support this feature and have it enabled.
"Title%s".format(subtitle.map(": " + _).getOrElse(""))
map method is very convenient to use with the Option type. You can say what you want to do assuming some value is there, and don't care what happens if it's None. At the end you just provide an alternative if the latter occured (in our case empty String "").
A bit cleaner than your approach but the same idea. I think this is pretty readable:
"Title: %s" format subtitle.getOrElse("")
As an aside, the following link is a great resource if you're pattern matching on an Option but think there's probably a better way: Scala Option Cheat sheet
Well you could use:
"Title" + subtitle.fold("")(": " + _)
but personally I still find that a little verbose so I have a utilities package that I import which includes
implicit class OptionRichClass[A](n: Option[A])
{
def apply[T](valNone: T, fSome: A => T): T = n.fold(valNone)(s => fSome(s))
def mapList[T](f: (A) => T): List[T] = n.map[T](f(_)).toList
def flatList[T](f:(A) => List[T]): List[T] = n.fold(List[T]())(f(_))
def flatSeq[T](f:(A) => Seq[T]): Seq[T] = n.fold(Seq[T]())(f(_))
}
The apply method is the important one here which would allow me to write:
"Title" + subtitle("", ": " + _)
I'm trying to write a function that returns a list (for querying purposes) that has some wildcard elements:
def createPattern(query: List[(String,String)]) = {
val l = List[(_,_,_,_,_,_,_)]
var iter = query
while(iter != null) {
val x = iter.head._1 match {
case "userId" => 0
case "userName" => 1
case "email" => 2
case "userPassword" => 3
case "creationDate" => 4
case "lastLoginDate" => 5
case "removed" => 6
}
l(x) = iter.head._2
iter = iter.tail
}
l
}
So, the user enters some query terms as a list. The function parses through these terms and inserts them into val l. The fields that the user doesn't specify are entered as wildcards.
Val l is causing me troubles. Am I going the right route or are there better ways to do this?
Thanks!
Gosh, where to start. I'd begin by getting an IDE (IntelliJ / Eclipse) which will tell you when you're writing nonsense and why.
Read up on how List works. It's an immutable linked list so your attempts to update by index are very misguided.
Don't use tuples - use case classes.
You shouldn't ever need to use null and I guess here you mean Nil.
Don't use var and while - use for-expression, or the relevant higher-order functions foreach, map etc.
Your code doesn't make much sense as it is, but it seems you're trying to return a 7-element list with the second element of each tuple in the input list mapped via a lookup to position in the output list.
To improve it... don't do that. What you're doing (as programmers have done since arrays were invented) is to use the index as a crude proxy for a Map from Int to whatever. What you want is an actual Map. I don't know what you want to do with it, but wouldn't it be nicer if it were from these key strings themselves, rather than by a number? If so, you can simplify your whole method to
def createPattern(query: List[(String,String)]) = query.toMap
at which point you should realise you probably don't need the method at all, since you can just use toMap at the call site.
If you insist on using an Int index, you could write
def createPattern(query: List[(String,String)]) = {
def intVal(x: String) = x match {
case "userId" => 0
case "userName" => 1
case "email" => 2
case "userPassword" => 3
case "creationDate" => 4
case "lastLoginDate" => 5
case "removed" => 6
}
val tuples = for ((key, value) <- query) yield (intVal(key), value)
tuples.toMap
}
Not sure what you want to do with the resulting list, but you can't create a List of wildcards like that.
What do you want to do with the resulting list, and what type should it be?
Here's how you might build something if you wanted the result to be a List[String], and if you wanted wildcards to be "*":
def createPattern(query:List[(String,String)]) = {
val wildcard = "*"
def orElseWildcard(key:String) = query.find(_._1 == key).getOrElse("",wildcard)._2
orElseWildcard("userID") ::
orElseWildcard("userName") ::
orElseWildcard("email") ::
orElseWildcard("userPassword") ::
orElseWildcard("creationDate") ::
orElseWildcard("lastLoginDate") ::
orElseWildcard("removed") ::
Nil
}
You're not using List, Tuple, iterator, or wild-cards correctly.
I'd take a different approach - maybe something like this:
case class Pattern ( valueMap:Map[String,String] ) {
def this( valueList:List[(String,String)] ) = this( valueList.toMap )
val Seq(
userId,userName,email,userPassword,creationDate,
lastLoginDate,removed
):Seq[Option[String]] = Seq( "userId", "userName",
"email", "userPassword", "creationDate", "lastLoginDate",
"removed" ).map( valueMap.get(_) )
}
Then you can do something like this:
scala> val pattern = new Pattern( List( "userId" -> "Fred" ) )
pattern: Pattern = Pattern(Map(userId -> Fred))
scala> pattern.email
res2: Option[String] = None
scala> pattern.userId
res3: Option[String] = Some(Fred)
, or just use the map directly.
When we need an array of strings to be concatenated, we can use mkString method:
val concatenatedString = listOfString.mkString
However, when we have a very long list of string, getting concatenated string may not be a good choice. In this case, It would be more appropriated to print out to an output stream directly, Writing it to output stream is simple:
listOfString.foreach(outstream.write _)
However, I don't know a neat way to append separators. One thing I tried is looping with an index:
var i = 0
for(str <- listOfString) {
if(i != 0) outstream.write ", "
outstream.write str
i += 1
}
This works, but it is too wordy. Although I can make a function encapsules the code above, I want to know whether Scala API already has a function do the same thing or not.
Thank you.
Here is a function that do what you want in a bit more elegant way:
def commaSeparated(list: List[String]): Unit = list match {
case List() =>
case List(a) => print(a)
case h::t => print(h + ", ")
commaSeparated(t)
}
The recursion avoids mutable variables.
To make it even more functional style, you can pass in the function that you want to use on each item, that is:
def commaSeparated(list: List[String], func: String=>Unit): Unit = list match {
case List() =>
case List(a) => func(a)
case h::t => func(h + ", ")
commaSeparated(t, func)
}
And then call it by:
commaSeparated(mylist, oustream.write _)
I believe what you want is the overloaded definitions of mkString.
Definitions of mkString:
scala> val strList = List("hello", "world", "this", "is", "bob")
strList: List[String] = List(hello, world, this, is, bob)
def mkString: String
scala> strList.mkString
res0: String = helloworldthisisbob
def mkString(sep: String): String
scala> strList.mkString(", ")
res1: String = hello, world, this, is, bob
def mkString(start: String, sep: String, end: String): String
scala> strList.mkString("START", ", ", "END")
res2: String = STARThello, world, this, is, bobEND
EDIT
How about this?
scala> strList.view.map(_ + ", ").foreach(print) // or .iterator.map
hello, world, this, is, bob,
Not good for parallelized code, but otherwise:
val it = listOfString.iterator
it.foreach{x => print(x); if (it.hasNext) print(' ')}
Here's another approach which avoids the var
listOfString.zipWithIndex.foreach{ case (s, i) =>
if (i != 0) outstream write ","
outstream write s }
Self Answer:
I wrote a function encapsulates the code in the original question:
implicit def withSeparator[S >: String](seq: Seq[S]) = new {
def withSeparator(write: S => Any, sep: String = ",") = {
var i = 0
for (str <- seq) {
if (i != 0) write(sep)
write(str)
i += 1
}
seq
}
}
You can use it like this:
listOfString.withSeparator(print _)
The separator can also be assigned:
listOfString.withSeparator(print _, ",\n")
Thank you for everyone answered me. What I wanted to use is a concise and not too slow representation. The implicit function withSeparator looks like the thing I wanted. So I accept my own answer for this question. Thank you again.
I've obviously done a very poor job of explaining what I'm looking for in my original post so let's try this one more time. What I'm trying to accomplish is the ability to pass a sequence of items, extract one or more of the items, and then pass the REMAINDER of the sequence on to another extractor. Note that by sequence I mean sequence (not necessarily a List). My previous examples used list as the sequence and I gave some examples of extraction using cons (::), but I could just as well pass an Array as my sequence.
I thought I knew how pattern matching and extraction worked but I could be wrong so to avoid any more basic comments and links to how to do pattern matching sites here's my understanding:
If I want to return a single item from my extractor I would define an unapply method. This method takes whatever type I chose as input (the type could be a sequence...) and returns a single optional item (the return type could itself be a sequence). The return must be wrapped in Some if I want a match or None if I don't. Here is an example that takes a sequence as input and returns the same sequence wrapped in Some but only if it contains all Strings. I could very well just return the sequence wrapped in Some and not do anything else, but this seems to cause confusion for people. The key is if it is wrapped in Some then it will match and if it is None it will not. Just to be more clear, the match will also not happen unless the input also matches my unapply methods input type. Here is my example:
object Test {
// In my original post I just returned the Seq itself just to verify I
// had matched but many people commented they didn't understand what I
// was trying to do so I've made it a bit more complicated (e.g. match
// only if the sequence is a sequence of Strings). Hopefully I don't
// screw this up and introduce a bug :)
def unapply[A](xs: Seq[A]): Option[Seq[String]] =
if (xs forall { _.isInstanceOf[String] })
Some(xs.asInstanceOf[Seq[String]])
else
None
}
Using List as an example, I can now perform the following:
// This works
def test1(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case (s: String) :: Test(rest) =>
println("s = " + s + ", rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
test1(List("foo", "bar", "baz")) // "s = foo, rest = List(bar, baz)"
My test1 function takes List as input and extracts the head and tail using cons via the constructor pattern (e.g. ::(s, rest)). It then uses type ascription (: String) to make sure the head (s) is a String. The tail contains List("bar", "baz"). This is a List which means it is also a Seq (sequence). It is then passed as input to my Test extractor which verifies that both "bar" and "baz" are strings and returns the List wrapped in Some. Since Some is returned it is considered a match (although in my original post where I inadvertently mixed up unapplySeq with unapply this didn't work as expected, but that aside...). This is NOT what I'm looking for. This was only an example to show that Test does in fact extract a Seq as input as expected.
Now, here's where I caused mass confusion last time when I inadvertently used unapplySeq instead of unapply in my write up. After much confusion trying to understand the comments that were posted I finally picked up on the mistake. Many thanks to Dan for pointing me in the right direction...
But just be avoid any more confusion, let me clarify my understanding of unapplySeq. Like unapply, unapplySeq takes in whatever argument I choose as input, but instead of returning a single element it returns a sequence of elements. Each item in this sequence can then be used for additional pattern matching. Again, to make a match happen the input type must match and my returned sequence must be wrapped in Some and not be None. When extracting over the sequence of items returned from unapplySeq, you can use _* to match any remaining items not yet matched.
Ok, so my extractor takes a sequence as input and returns a sequence (as a single item) in return. Since I only want to return a single item as a match I need to use unapply NOT unapplySeq. Even though in my case I'm returning a Seq, I don't want unapplySeq because I don't want to do more pattern matching on the items in the Seq. I just want to return the items as a Seq on its own to then be passed to the body of my case match. This sounds confusing, but to those that understand unapply vs unapplySeq I hope it isn't.
So here is what I WANT to do. I want to take something that returns a sequence (e.g. List or Array) and I want to extract a few items from this sequence and then extract the REMAINDER of the items (e.g. _*) as a sequence. Let's call it the remainder sequence. I want to then pass the remainder sequence as input to my extractor. My extractor will then return the remaining items as a single Seq if it matches my criteria. Just to be 100% clear. The List (or Array, etc) will have its unapplySeq extractor called to create the sequence of items. I will extract a one or more of these items and then pass what is left as a sequence to my Test extractor which will use unapply (NOT unapplySeq) to return the remainder. If you are confused by this, then please don't comment...
Here are my tests:
// Doesn't compile. Is there a syntax for this?
def test2(xs: Seq[_]) = xs match {
// Variations tried:
// Test(rest) # _* - doesn't compile (this one seems reasonable to me)
// Test(rest # _*) - doesn't compile (would compile if Test had
// unapplySeq, but in that case would bind List's
// second element to Test as a Seq and then bind
// rest to that Seq (if all strings) - not what I'm
// looking for...). I though that this might work
// since Scala knows Test has no unapplySeq only
// unapply so # _* can be tied to the List not Test
// rest # Test(_*) - doesn't compile (didn't expect to)
case List(s: String, Test(rest) # _*) =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
// This works, but messy
def test3(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case List(s: String, rest # _*) if (
rest match { case Test(rest) => true; case _ => false }
) =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
I created test3 based on comments from Julian (thanks Julian..). Some have commented that test3 does what I want so they are confused what I'm looking for. Yes, it accomplishes what I want to accomplish, but I'm not satisfied with it. Daniel's example also works (thanks Daniel), but I'm also not satisfied with having to create another extractor to split things and then do embedded extractions. These solutions seem too much work in order to accomplish something that seems fairly straight forward to me. What I WANT is to make test2 work or know that it can't be done this way. Is the error given because the syntax is wrong? I know that rest # _* will return a Seq, that can be verified here:
def test4(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case List(s: String, rest # _*) =>
println(rest.getClass) // scala.collection.immutable.$colon$colon
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
It returns cons (::) which is a List which is a Seq. So how can I pass the _* Seq on to my extractor and have is return bound to the variable rest?
Note that I've also tried passing varargs to my unapply constructor (e.g. unapply(xs: A*)...) but that won't match either.
So, I hope it is clear now when I say I want to extract the remainder of a sequence in pattern matching. I'm not sure how else I can word it.
Based on the great feedback from Daniel I'm hoping he is going to have an answer for me :)
I'd like to extract the first item and pass the remainder on to another extractor.
OK. Your test1 does that, exactly. first_item :: Extractor(the_rest). The weird behavior you're seeing comes from your Test extractor. As you already had the answer to your stated question, and as expected behavior from your Test strikes you as a problem with test1, it seems that what you really want is some help with extractors.
So, please read Extractor Objects, from docs.scala-lang.org, and Pattern Matching in Scala (pdf). Although that PDF has an example of unapplySeq, and suggests where you'd want to use it, here are some extra examples:
object Sorted {
def unapply(xs: Seq[Int]) =
if (xs == xs.sortWith(_ < _)) Some(xs) else None
}
object SortedSeq {
def unapplySeq(xs: Seq[Int]) =
if (xs == xs.sortWith(_ < _)) Some(xs) else None
}
Interactively:
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case Sorted(xs) => Some(xs); case _ => None }
res0: Option[Seq[Int]] = Some(List(1, 2, 3, 4))
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case Sorted(xs) => Some(xs); case _ => None }
res1: Option[Seq[Int]] = None
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case first :: Sorted(rest) => Some(first, rest); case _ => None }
res2: Option[(Int, Seq[Int])] = Some((4,List(1, 2, 3)))
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case SortedSeq(a,b,c,d) => (a,b,c,d) }
res3: (Int, Int, Int, Int) = (1,2,3,4)
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case _ :: SortedSeq(a, b, _*) => (a,b) }
res4: (Int, Int) = (1,2)
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case SortedSeq(a, rest # _*) => (a, rest) }
res5: (Int, Seq[Int]) = (1,List(2, 3, 4))
Or maybe -- I only have the faint suspicion of this, you haven't said as much -- you don't want extractor help, but actually you want a terse way to express something like
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case 1 :: xs if (xs match { case Sorted(_) => true; case _ => false }) => xs }
res6: List[Int] = List(2, 3, 4)
Erlang has a feature like this (although, without these crazy extractors):
example(L=[1|_]) -> examine(L).
, which pattern-matches the same argument twice - to L and also to [1|_]. In Erlang both sides of the = are full-fledged patterns and could be anything, and you can add a third or more patterns with more =. Scala seems to only support the L=[1|_] form, having a variable and then a full pattern.
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case xs # _ :: Sorted(_) => xs }
collection.immutable.::[Int] = List(4, 1, 2, 3)
Well, the easiest way is this:
case (s: String) :: Test(rest # _*) =>
If you need this to work on general Seq, you can just define an extractor to split head from tail:
object Split {
def unapply[T](xs: Seq[T]): Option[(T, Seq[T])] = if (xs.nonEmpty) Some(xs.head -> xs.tail) else None
}
And then use it like
case Split(s: String, Test(rest # _*)) =>
Also note that if you had defined unapply instead of unapplySeq, then # _* would not be required on the pattern matched by Test.
:: is an extractor. For how it works (from a random googling), see, for example, here.
def test1(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case s :: rest =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
scala> test1(List("a", "b", "c"))
s = a rest = List(b, c)
I think this is what you wanted?
Messing around with this, it seems that the issue has something to do with unapplySeq.
object Test {
def unapply[A](xs: List[A]): Option[List[A]] = Some(xs)
}
def test1(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case (s: String) :: Test(s2 :: rest) =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
test1(List("foo", "bar", "baz"))
produces the output:
s = foo rest = List(baz)
I'm havng trouble googling up docs on the difference between unapply and unapplySeq.
Option monad is a great expressive way to deal with something-or-nothing things in Scala. But what if one needs to log a message when "nothing" occurs? According to the Scala API documentation,
The Either type is often used as an
alternative to scala.Option where Left
represents failure (by convention) and
Right is akin to Some.
However, I had no luck to find best practices using Either or good real-world examples involving Either for processing failures. Finally I've come up with the following code for my own project:
def logs: Array[String] = {
def props: Option[Map[String, Any]] = configAdmin.map{ ca =>
val config = ca.getConfiguration(PID, null)
config.properties getOrElse immutable.Map.empty
}
def checkType(any: Any): Option[Array[String]] = any match {
case a: Array[String] => Some(a)
case _ => None
}
def lookup: Either[(Symbol, String), Array[String]] =
for {val properties <- props.toRight('warning -> "ConfigurationAdmin service not bound").right
val logsParam <- properties.get("logs").toRight('debug -> "'logs' not defined in the configuration").right
val array <- checkType(logsParam).toRight('warning -> "unknown type of 'logs' confguration parameter").right}
yield array
lookup.fold(failure => { failure match {
case ('warning, msg) => log(LogService.WARNING, msg)
case ('debug, msg) => log(LogService.DEBUG, msg)
case _ =>
}; new Array[String](0) }, success => success)
}
(Please note this is a snippet from a real project, so it will not compile on its own)
I'd be grateful to know how you are using Either in your code and/or better ideas on refactoring the above code.
Either is used to return one of possible two meaningful results, unlike Option which is used to return a single meaningful result or nothing.
An easy to understand example is given below (circulated on the Scala mailing list a while back):
def throwableToLeft[T](block: => T): Either[java.lang.Throwable, T] =
try {
Right(block)
} catch {
case ex => Left(ex)
}
As the function name implies, if the execution of "block" is successful, it will return "Right(<result>)". Otherwise, if a Throwable is thrown, it will return "Left(<throwable>)". Use pattern matching to process the result:
var s = "hello"
throwableToLeft { s.toUpperCase } match {
case Right(s) => println(s)
case Left(e) => e.printStackTrace
}
// prints "HELLO"
s = null
throwableToLeft { s.toUpperCase } match {
case Right(s) => println(s)
case Left(e) => e.printStackTrace
}
// prints NullPointerException stack trace
Hope that helps.
Scalaz library has something alike Either named Validation. It is more idiomatic than Either for use as "get either a valid result or a failure".
Validation also allows to accumulate errors.
Edit: "alike" Either is complettly false, because Validation is an applicative functor, and scalaz Either, named \/ (pronounced "disjonction" or "either"), is a monad.
The fact that Validation can accumalate errors is because of that nature. On the other hand, / has a "stop early" nature, stopping at the first -\/ (read it "left", or "error") it encounters. There is a perfect explanation here: http://typelevel.org/blog/2014/02/21/error-handling.html
See: http://scalaz.googlecode.com/svn/continuous/latest/browse.sxr/scalaz/example/ExampleValidation.scala.html
As requested by the comment, copy/paste of the above link (some lines removed):
// Extracting success or failure values
val s: Validation[String, Int] = 1.success
val f: Validation[String, Int] = "error".fail
// It is recommended to use fold rather than pattern matching:
val result: String = s.fold(e => "got error: " + e, s => "got success: " + s.toString)
s match {
case Success(a) => "success"
case Failure(e) => "fail"
}
// Validation is a Monad, and can be used in for comprehensions.
val k1 = for {
i <- s
j <- s
} yield i + j
k1.toOption assert_≟ Some(2)
// The first failing sub-computation fails the entire computation.
val k2 = for {
i <- f
j <- f
} yield i + j
k2.fail.toOption assert_≟ Some("error")
// Validation is also an Applicative Functor, if the type of the error side of the validation is a Semigroup.
// A number of computations are tried. If the all success, a function can combine them into a Success. If any
// of them fails, the individual errors are accumulated.
// Use the NonEmptyList semigroup to accumulate errors using the Validation Applicative Functor.
val k4 = (fNel <**> fNel){ _ + _ }
k4.fail.toOption assert_≟ some(nel1("error", "error"))
The snippet you posted seems very contrived. You use Either in a situation where:
It's not enough to just know the data isn't available.
You need to return one of two distinct types.
Turning an exception into a Left is, indeed, a common use case. Over try/catch, it has the advantage of keeping the code together, which makes sense if the exception is an expected result. The most common way of handling Either is pattern matching:
result match {
case Right(res) => ...
case Left(res) => ...
}
Another interesting way of handling Either is when it appears in a collection. When doing a map over a collection, throwing an exception might not be viable, and you may want to return some information other than "not possible". Using an Either enables you to do that without overburdening the algorithm:
val list = (
library
\\ "books"
map (book =>
if (book \ "author" isEmpty)
Left(book)
else
Right((book \ "author" toList) map (_ text))
)
)
Here we get a list of all authors in the library, plus a list of books without an author. So we can then further process it accordingly:
val authorCount = (
(Map[String,Int]() /: (list filter (_ isRight) map (_.right.get)))
((map, author) => map + (author -> (map.getOrElse(author, 0) + 1)))
toList
)
val problemBooks = list flatMap (_.left.toSeq) // thanks to Azarov for this variation
So, basic Either usage goes like that. It's not a particularly useful class, but if it were you'd have seen it before. On the other hand, it's not useless either.
Cats has a nice way to create an Either from exception-throwing code:
val either: Either[NumberFormatException, Int] =
Either.catchOnly[NumberFormatException]("abc".toInt)
// either: Either[NumberFormatException,Int] = Left(java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "abc")
in https://typelevel.org/cats/datatypes/either.html#working-with-exception-y-code