If you’ve ever wanted to store and access values of different types using an ordinary Map , here’s what you need :

It’s just 20 lines of code, with no dependencies. You can drop it into your project and start using it right away. Don’t worry if the code doesn’t make sense, we’ll go over the implementation in detail later. But let’s try it out first, starting with a Key (you might want to follow along in a REPL of your own) :

In the key k1 , apart from the string "a" , we’re also storing information about the type of value it will point to in the Map using a TypeTag . You can learn about TypeTag s and type erasure here, but the basic idea is that they let you work with types at runtime.

Key is a simple case class, except that the equals method is overridden to compare the underlying key as well as the value type correctly (you can’t compare TypeTag s using == ). Let’s try to create a Map using k1 :

Surprise! It doesn’t compile. Why is that? Well, the -> operator in scala is not a primitive. It is implemented by means of an implicit class, and creates a Tuple2 of the arguments around it. We would like to exercise some control over the type of values a Key can be paired with, so we have disabled the implicit -> operator by defining it as a method on Key . This method returns None , which cannot be provided as a constructor argument to Map .

To pair a Key with a value, we shall use the type safe arrow method ~> :

Since k1 is of type Key[String, Int] , ~> expects an Int , and compilation fails if we try to give it anything else. Let’s create a valid Map and try to access the value stored in it :

We were able ensure that k1 points an Int value, but when we try to access it, we get back a value of type Any , which is no good! Let’s fix this using TypedMap , which is a wrapper around Map that lets you get back values with the right types :

Voila! The value we get out of the map m using k1 magically has the right type (we’re casting it under the hood, but let’s keep that between us). Here’s a map with different types of values :

We can recover each of the values with the right type using just the keys :

And we can work with keys that aren’t present in the map just as easily :

At this point, you might want to scroll back up all the way and go through the implementation of Key and TypedMap , and it should make a lot more sense. Now you can use a Map just like you would a case class or a tuple. Or you could just use a case class, right? Well, case classes and tuples are great, except when they’re a huge pain the ass. Specifically :

Tuple elements have to be accessed as ._1 , ._2 etc., which is just plain ugly. Case classes solve this by letting you name the elements. TypedMap s let you use pretty much anything as a key, and you can decide which ones to use at runtime. You cannot build a tuple or a case class in steps, you have to build it all in one go. You might wrap the elements in Option s, but then you find yourself calling .get (or pattern matching) all over the place. TypedMap s can be built in steps by adding key-value pairs one by one. Case classes and tuples are unbelievably rigid, to the point that it is annoying. They don’t compose at all! You can’t concatenate tuples, and if you want to combine case classes you will have to write a ton of boilerplate to do it. TypedMap s are ordinary Map s, so you can combine them quite easily. Sometimes you need a traditional Map i.e. a set of key-value pairs, with keys and values that can be passed around independently and used across multiple maps. A case class is simply too restrictive in such situations.

While TypedMap and Key are good to use as defined above, there’s bit of boilerplate involved in using them. Let’s define some helper classes to help clean up the syntax :

With the help of these implicit classes, it becomes much easier to create and use TypedMap s :

That’s pretty much it! Feel free to use it, but keep in mind that this is a simple (albeit functional) implementation and has several shortcomings. For instance, you can ask for a key that doesn’t exist and it will blow up at runtime, like an ordinary Map would. Also, since you have access to the underlying Map , you can call methods like .map , .flatMap etc. on it and totally mess up the whole thing and get all kinds of runtime exceptions. This can be avoided by making the underlying Map private and exposing only a limited set of methods on TypedMap . If you need better compile time safety and more features, you should check out scala records or shapeless records. I would suggest that you use case classes whenever you can, but when you find that your head hurts trying to do what you want, use TypedMap s (or something similar). Here’s the full implementation (raw) :

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.