C# does not support sum types, which are commonly used to encode failure at the type level in statically typed functional languages. So in C#, how can we encode failure in the type system in order to keep our functions total and our signatures true (rather than throw exceptions and perforate our information pipelines in the process, making them as air tight as a strainer)?

In a
previous post, I lamented the prevalent use of exceptions in C#
because it break the contract stated a function’s signature, and it
forces the caller of the function to know implementation details, thus
violating the “program to an interface, not an implementation” mantra^{1}.

As an alternative to restricting the function’s input type to
*only* valid values, I gave an example, in F#, of using
`Option`

as the return type. This
`Option<'T>`

^{2} type can be simply
defined as the collection of all values of `T`

, tagged with a
`Some`

data constructor, plus an additional `None`

value.^{3} *Sum type*s like this one are
supported in F# and other (predominantly functional) languages (e.g.,
Haskell, OCaml, SML, Scala, Rust, etc.), and specifying such a type in
those languages is trivial. In F#, for example, the type is defined
as

`type Option<'T> = None | Some of 'T`

But how might you do this in languages that do not have native
support for sum types, like C#? Church encoding
is one way to do it.^{4} Church encoding, named after Alonzo
Church, is a means of representing data and operators in the untyped
lambda calculus, i.e., using only functions. To represent our two
options `None`

and `Some of 'T`

using Church
encoding, we need two functions, one for each case. What might these
functions look like?

In Haskell syntax:

```
= \n s -> n
none = \x n s -> s x some
```

In JavaScript syntax:

```
const none = n => s => n
const some = x => n => s => s(x)
```

Each function takes as arguments each of the possible cases:
`n`

(`None`

) and `s`

(`Some`

). We define `none`

simply as the function
than returns `n`

, and `some`

as the function that
“loads” an `x`

value (this corresponds to the `T`

value in `Option<'T>`

), ignores the `n`

value, and returns `s`

applied to `x`

. These
functions serve as a kind of
pattern
matching mechanism. For example, say we have a `match`

function that takes an `o`

function that is either
`none`

or `some`

, a default `d`

in case
`o`

is `none`

, and a function `f`

in
case `o`

it `some`

:

Haskell:

`= \d f o -> o d f match `

JavaScript:

`const match = d => f => o => o(d)(f)`

Then applying `match`

to `some`

would yield
`f`

applied to the `x`

in `some`

,
e.g.,

Haskell:

```
0 (+1) (some 2)
match == (some 2) 0 (+1)
== (\n s -> s 2) 0 (+1)
== 3
```

JavaScript:

```
match(0)(x => x+1)(some(2))
== some(2)(0)(x => x+1)
== (n => s => s(2))(0)(x => x+1)
== 3
```

Applying `match`

to `none`

would yield
`d`

, e.g.,

Haskell:

```
0 (+1) none
match == none 0 (+1)
== (\n s -> n) 0 (+1)
== 0
```

JavaScript:

```
match(0)(x => x+1)(none)
== none(0)(x => x+1)
== (n => s => n)(0)(x => x+1)
== 0
```

How do we encode this in C#? Since we want to tie these two option
together as one type, let’s define two classes `None`

and
`Some`

that implement a common interface `IOption`

with a `Match`

function.

```
public interface IOption<T>
{
<R>(R none, Func<T, R> some);
R Match}
public class None<T> : IOption<T>
{
public R Match<R>(R none, Func<T, R> some)
{
return none;
}
}
public class Some<T> : IOption<T>
{
private readonly T value;
public Some(T value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public R Match<R>(R none, Func<T, R> some)
{
return some(value);
}
}
```

The `Some`

constructor take a value, which corresponds to
the x in the
`\x n s -> s x`

lambda function above, and serves as a
kind of partial application of it.

The `Match`

method, as the `match`

function
previously shown, is used to transform the `Option`

type
values (`None`

and `Some`

) into other values or
even other types. For example, if we have a value
`IOption opt`

, we can call

`.Match("this is None", s => s.ToString()); opt`

to perform a transformation on `opt`

into a
`string`

. We don’t need to know if `opt`

is
`None`

or `Some`

, but if it is `None`

,
the expression will return `"this is None"`

, and if it is
`Some`

, it will return the string representation of that
value.

We can make the code more powerful by introducing a few more
functions, for example, a LINQ-like `Select`

and
`SelectMany`

(using extension methods). These functions take
a function to apply for the case where we have `Some`

-thing,
and otherwise simply return `None`

if `None`

is
the value^{5}:

```
public static class Option
{
public static IOption<R> Select<T, R>(this IOption<T> source, Func<T, R> selector)
{
return source.Match<IOption<R>>(new None<R>(), x => new Some<R>(selector(x)));
}
public static IOption<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this IOption<T> source, Func<T, IOption<R>> f)
{
return source.Match<IOption<R>>(new None<R>(), f);
}
}
```

And here’s how you’d use them:

```
var n = new Some<int>(42);
var nplus1 = n.Select(i => i+1);
var nplus10 = n.SelectMany(i => (new Some<int>(i+10)));
```

To sum up, we can encode sum types using functions *a-la*
lambda calculus. In C#, we can use this in combination with classes and
interfaces to have a form of sum type encoding in the type system. Here,
we have only demonstrated the implementation of one particular sum type
(`Option<'T>`

), but Curch encoding is generic, so any
other sum type can be encoded this way.

### References

Ironically, C# has (and encourages the use of) interfaces in the syntactical sense (i.e., the

`interface`

construct, e.g.,`IEnumerable`

), presumably to adhere to the mantra, yet all the exception throwing forces us to peek into the implementations to know 1) if something could fail, 2) how it could fail, 3) with what exception(s) a failure is communicated; all this so we know if and how to handle failures via exceptions for each and every function call we make. As a bonus, these failure cases (presumably an important part of a program’s flow) communicated via exceptions are not compile-time checked.↩︎Note that this F#

`Option<'T>`

type, with data constructors`None`

and`Some`

, is exactly the same as Haskell’s`Maybe a`

type, with data constructors`Nothing`

and`Just`

.↩︎Readers familiar with C# will know that later versions of the language now support nullable value types as a way to capture some of this functionality. However, note that, while we demonstrate church encoding for a “there-may-be-no-value” situations, this encoding is generic and can be applied to any sum type, e.g., the F#

`Result`

(Haskell`Either`

) and many others.↩︎If you search the web for “church-encoding sum types” you will find many articles explaining and demonstrating this encoding in a variety of languages.↩︎

For those familiar with Haskell, you’ll know that these methods essentially (though not strictly) correspond to the

*functor*and*monad*type classes.↩︎