Abstract Algebraic Data Type

Scala’s sealed class hierarchies (aka. Algebraic Data Types) are for sure one of its most praised features. Yet, they have one downside: they don’t let us abstract over the type hierarchy as traits and classes are all about constructing new concrete types.

In this post, we will explore how we can relax this constraint so that we can get an abstracted version of scala.Option, which would allow us to switch implementations.

Deconstructing Scala's algebraic data types

As a reminder, here is how Scala’s Options are implemented:

sealed abstract class Option[+A]
final case class Some[+A](x: A) extends Option[A]
case object None extends Option[Nothing]

Here is the corresponding scaladoc diagram:


There are quite a few things happening here: * we need to be able to speak about the types and their relationships; * then we need a way to inject values in those types; * finally we need a way to inspect the values for those types to extract their content.

On types and subtyping

There is a subtyping relationship between Some/None and Option.

Actually, None itself is not a type but a value, whose type is None.type, a subtype of Option. Also, Option and Some are not technically types, but type constructors (aka. higher kinded types): we need to provide a type A to produce an Option[A] type.

Finally, Option is covariant in its parameterized type A, so that Option[Nothing] is a subtype of Option[A] because Nothing is a subtype of any type.

On injectors

We have two (here somewhat equivalent) ways of injecting a value of type A into a Some[A]:

None is a singleton object, therefore it is the only inhabitant of None.type.

On extractors

Given an Option[A], we can reason by cases using pattern matching.

This is achieved through the unapply extractor methods on the Option companion object. And because Option is sealed, the type checker will be able to check for exhaustiveness.

Finally, given a Some[A], we can retrieve its content through the x field accessor, or again using the Some.unapply extractor.

Abstracting over types

My colleague Dan explored how to encode modules in Scala in a previous blog article. If you haven’t read it yet, I warmly recommend you to do it, even if not strictly necessary for understanding what is going on here. Also here, I will choose yet another encoding using a typeclass approach.

First, let’s define the entire type hierarchy in one place:

import scala.language.higherKinds

trait OptionSig {
  type Option[+_]
  type Some[+A] <: Option[A]
  type None <: Option[Nothing]

We used the Sig suffix as if OptionSig was an ML module signature but this is not the complete signature as there are no function defined in this trait.

This is just a convenient way to gather several types into a single one, a bit like a record, but for types. Given an OptionSig, we can now speak about one of the types it contains using a type projection, eg. OptionSig#Option[A].

Abstracting over operations

Now that we have a type hierarchy, we can complete our signature with the operations that must be defined over it:

abstract class OptionOps[Sig <: OptionSig] {
  def some[A](x: A): Sig#Some[A]
  def none: Sig#None
  def fold[A, B](opt: Sig#Option[A])(ifNone: => B, ifSome: A => B): B

You might be wondering why we need this Sig as a subtype for OptionSig, as this is usually not needed for typeclasses. It’s because we need to be able to project its inner types.

some[A] is the injector for Sig#Some[A]. none doesn’t take any parameter, so it really acts as a singleton value for Sig#None.

fold[A, B] is the essence of the Sig#Option[A] type: given the two passed functions, it can react on the actual type for opt at runtime:

By the way, an algebra defined through a fold is called a catamorphism!

Finally, we can define a helper to retrieve an instance of OptionOps[Sig] given a signature, if it is available:

object OptionOps {

  def apply[Sig <: OptionSig](implicit ops: OptionOps[Sig]): OptionOps[Sig] = ops


Functions over `OptionSig`/`OptionOps`

We now want to define new structures that depends on our module. For this, we need something similar to an ML functor.

For example, let’s define a functor that can construct instances of scalaz.Show for us:

import scalaz.Show

class OptionShow[Sig <: OptionSig : OptionOps] {

  def optionShow[A : Show]: Show[Sig#Option[A]] = {

    // retrieving the typeclass instances
    val showA = Show[A]
    val ops = OptionOps[Sig]

    val instance = new Show[Sig#Option[A]] {
      override def shows(opt: Sig#Option[A]): String = ops.fold(opt)(
        x => s"some(${showA.shows(x)})"



object OptionShow {

  implicit def apply[Sig <: OptionSig : OptionOps]: OptionShow[Sig] = new OptionShow[Sig]


That is a lot of weird Scala notations that you may not be familiar with. Let’s decompose them.

OptionShow[Sig <: OptionSig : OptionOps] means that OptionShow is parameterized by a Sig, which is required to be a subtype of OptionSig. Also an instance of OptionOps[Sig] must be implicitly available.

def optionShow[A : Show]: Show[Sig#Option[A]] means that if we can provide an instance of Show[A], then optionShow can construct an instance of Show[Sig#Option[A]] for us.

scalaz.Show is a simple yet powerful typeclass from Scalaz. It simply provides a shows function for instances of the provided type (here Sig#Option[A]). The trick here is that unlike Object#toString(), our Show instances are driven by types, so we can rely on a Show[A] being available.

A simple implementation

We almost have everything we need in place. We just need to provide an implementation for our module.

scala.Option looks like a good candidate for a first implementation, after all that’s where we started from:

trait ScalaOption extends OptionSig {

  type Option[+A] = scala.Option[A]
  type Some[+A]   = scala.Some[A]
  type None       = scala.None.type


object ScalaOption {

  implicit object ops extends OptionOps[ScalaOption] {

    def some[A](x: A): ScalaOption#Some[A] = scala.Some(x)

    val none: ScalaOption#None = scala.None

    def fold[A, B](opt: ScalaOption#Option[A])(ifNone: => B, ifSome: A => B): B =
      opt match {
        case scala.None    => ifNone
        case scala.Some(x) => ifSome(x)



Nothing fancy here. We just plugged (aka. aliased) our types to the concrete ones. some and none respectively delegate to the Some.apply function and the None singleton. Finally, the fold implementation relies on pattern matching.

Just note that the typeclass instance for OptionOps[ScalaOption] is made available in the companion object for ScalaOption so that it will always be picked up by Scala when looking for such an implicit.

Using our option

Finally, we can write a program using our shiny abstractions :-)

class Program[Sig <: OptionSig : OptionOps] extends App {

  val ops = OptionOps[Sig]
  import ops._

  // a little dance to derive our Show instance
  import scalaz.std.anyVal.intInstance
  val showOptOptInt = {
    implicit val showOptInt = OptionShow[Sig].optionShow[Int]

  // scalaz's syntax tricks are awesome
  import showOptOptInt.showSyntax._

  val optOpt = some(some(42))

  println("optOpt: " + optOpt.shows)

  val optNone = some(none)

  println("optNone: " + optNone.shows)


And we plug everything together:

scala> object MainWithScalaOption extends Program[ScalaOption]
defined object MainWithScalaOption

scala> MainWithScalaOption.main(Array())
optOpt: some(some(42))
optNone: some(none)

Our own module implementation

Turns out there are many ways to implement our module.

Here is a version of our module where we provide our own classes:

object MyOption extends OptionSig {

  sealed abstract class Option[+A]

  final case class Some[+A](x: A) extends Option[A]

  sealed abstract class None extends Option[Nothing]
  case object None extends None

  implicit object ops extends OptionOps[MyOption.type] {

    def some[A](x: A): MyOption.type#Some[A] = Some(x)

    val none: MyOption.type#None = None

    def fold[A, B](opt: MyOption.type#Option[A])(ifNone: => B, ifSome: A => B): B =
      opt match {
        case None    => ifNone
        case Some(x) => ifSome(x)


Notice that our signature lies in the singleton type MyOption.type. Scala will have no issue finding the implicit instance in itself because the companion object for a singleton object is itself!

We have introduced an abstract class None so that we don’t need to define a type alias type None = None.type. It also is interesting to see that Scala doesn’t require us to define our classes outside of MyOption to later alias them: we just do everything at once.

Java8-based implementation

Now, let’s reuse Java 8 java.util.Optional!

import java.util.Optional

trait Java8Option extends OptionSig {

  type Option[+A] = Optional[_ <: A]
  type Some[+A]   = Optional[_ <: A]
  type None       = Optional[Nothing]


object Java8Option {

  implicit object ops extends OptionOps[Java8Option] {

    def some[A](x: A): Java8Option#Some[A] = Optional.of(x)

    val none: Java8Option#None = Optional.empty()

    def fold[A, B](opt: Java8Option#Option[A])(ifNone: => B, ifSome: A => B): B = {
      import java.util.function.{ Function => F, Supplier }
      def f = new F[A, B] { def apply(a: A): B = ifSome(a) }
      def supplier = new Supplier[B] { def get(): B = ifNone }



Java 8’s Optional has only one class for the two cases, and it was made invariant. Still, we can easily fix that on the Scala side with [_ <: A].

`Any`-based implementation

Remember all the rage wars on Option vs null? Or the problem with boxing? Look at that:

trait NullOption extends OptionSig {

  type Option[+A] = Any
  type Some[+A]   = Any
  type None       = Null


object NullOption {

  implicit object ops extends OptionOps[NullOption] {

    def some[A](x: A): NullOption#Some[A] = x

    val none: NullOption#None = null

    def fold[A, B](opt: NullOption#Option[A])(ifNone: => B, ifSome: A => B): B = {
      if (opt == null) ifNone
      else ifSome(opt.asInstanceOf[A])



Yes, that’s right, we are relying on null for the None case while the Some case is the value itself :-)

But this is completely typesafe as it never leaks outside of the abstraction. The trick is that Null is a subtype of Any. And you can note that that there is no wrapping involved.

Back to our program

We now have four implementations of our option module, all behaving the same way:

scala> object MainWithScalaOption extends Program[ScalaOption]
defined object MainWithScalaOption

scala> MainWithScalaOption.main(Array())
optOpt: some(some(42))
optNone: some(none)

scala> object MainWithJava8Option extends Program[Java8Option]
defined object MainWithScalaOption

scala> MainWithJava8Option.main(Array())
optOpt: some(some(42))
optNone: some(none)

scala> object MainWithMyOption extends Program[MyOption.type]
defined object MainWithMyOption

scala> MainWithMyOption.main(Array())
optOpt: some(some(42))
optNone: some(none)

scala> object MainWithNullOption extends Program[NullOption]
defined object MainWithNullOption

scala> MainWithNullOption.main(Array())
optOpt: some(some(42))
optNone: none

How cool is that?


In the process, we have shown that typeclasses are a great alternative to the cake pattern when it comes to encode modules in Scala.

In practice, some variations are possible. For example, we could have ignored the subtyping relationships altogether. We would have end up with something closer to what happens in OCaml or Haskell as the constructors would both return a OptionSig#Option[A] instead of a subtype. Also, it would be easy to define some syntax enhancement, so that one could directly write something like myOption.fold("42", x => x.toString).

Finally, if you are interested in a more complex example using the techniques described here, have a look at Banana-RDF and its data model for RDF. The project provides five different implementations: (1) Jena and (2) Sesame, two competting Java libraries for RDF, (3) a pure Scala implementation that compiles down to JVM bytecode as well as (4) to Javascript through Scala-js, and finally (5) a pure Javascript implementation bound to rdfstore-js, again using Scala-js.