Improve the type signature of orElse

[jedesah]

The whole point of orElse is to drop the left hand value of a Disjunction, no sense having the type that is dropped influence the resulting type.

Let me know if I am missing something! :-)

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 75.70%

Merging #575 into master will decrease coverage by -0.01% as of f0ef537

@@            master   #575   diff @@
=====================================
  Files          157    157       
  Stmts         2166   2165     -1
  Branches        68     68       
  Methods          0      0       
=====================================
- Hit           1640   1639     -1
  Partial          0      0       
  Missed         526    526       

Review entire Coverage Diff as of f0ef537

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

[ceedubs]

👍 for the idea and type signature change.

If the original Xor is a Right, it would be nice to save an allocation by returning that same instance. I don't think fold will let you do that (at least not without an asInstanceOf), but I think if we replaced the implementation with a match we could. Should we give that a try?

[jedesah]

@ceedubs Sure!

[ceedubs]

👍 thanks!

[stew]

is there a difference in

case r @ Xor.Right(_) => r

and

case r => r

? The former is probably nicer to read, but does it come at a cost? i don't actually know and have wondered about this.

[jedesah]

I would be surprised if it did not come at a cost, but who knows, maybe the scala pattern matcher is smarter than I give it credit for. Happy to change it to r => r.

[non]

I think it will essentially correspond to an else case, so it seems fine to me.

[stew]

👍