In the previous post on Coroutine Theory I described the high-level differences between functions and coroutines but without going into any detail on syntax and semantics of coroutines as described by the C++ Coroutines TS (N4680).

The key new facility that the Coroutines TS adds to the C++ language is the ability to suspend a coroutine, allowing it to be later resumed. The mechanism the TS provides for doing this is via the new co_await operator.

Understanding how the co_await operator works can help to demystify the behaviour of coroutines and how they are suspended and resumed. In this post I will be explaining the mechanics of the co_await operator and introduce the related Awaitable and Awaiter type concepts.

But before I dive into co_await I want to give a brief overview of the Coroutines TS to provide some context.

What does the Coroutines TS give us?

Three new language keywords: co_await , co_yield and co_return

, and Several new types in the std::experimental namespace: coroutine_handle<P> coroutine_traits<Ts...> suspend_always suspend_never

namespace: A general mechanism that library writers can use to interact with coroutines and customise their behaviour.

A language facility that makes writing asynchronous code a whole lot easier!

The facilities the C++ Coroutines TS provides in the language can be thought of as a low-level assembly-language for coroutines. These facilities can be difficult to use directly in a safe way and are mainly intended to be used by library-writers to build higher-level abstractions that application developers can work with safely.

The plan is to deliver these new low-level facilities into an upcoming language standard (hopefully C++20) along with some accompanying higher-level types in the standard library that wrap these low-level building-blocks and make coroutines more accessible in a safe way for application developers.

Compiler <-> Library interaction

Interestingly, the Coroutines TS does not actually define the semantics of a coroutine. It does not define how to produce the value returned to the caller. It does not define what to do with the return value passed to the co_return statement or how to handle an exception that propagates out of the coroutine. It does not define what thread the coroutine should be resumed on.

Instead, it specifies a general mechanism for library code to customise the behaviour of the coroutine by implementing types that conform to a specific interface. The compiler then generates code that calls methods on instances of types provided by the library. This approach is similar to the way that a library-writer can customise the behaviour of a range-based for-loop by defining the begin() / end() methods and an iterator type.

The fact that the Coroutines TS doesn’t prescribe any particular semantics to the mechanics of a coroutine makes it a powerful tool. It allows library writers to define many different kinds of coroutines, for all sorts of different purposes.

For example, you can define a coroutine that produces a single value asynchronously, or a coroutine that produces a sequence of values lazily, or a coroutine that simplifies control-flow for consuming optional<T> values by early-exiting if a nullopt value is encountered.

There are two kinds of interfaces that are defined by the coroutines TS: The Promise interface and the Awaitable interface.

The Promise interface specifies methods for customising the behaviour of the coroutine itself. The library-writer is able to customise what happens when the coroutine is called, what happens when the coroutine returns (either by normal means or via an unhandled exception) and customise the behaviour of any co_await or co_yield expression within the coroutine.

The Awaitable interface specifies methods that control the semantics of a co_await expression. When a value is co_await ed, the code is translated into a series of calls to methods on the awaitable object that allow it to specify: whether to suspend the current coroutine, execute some logic after it has suspended to schedule the coroutine for later resumption, and execute some logic after the coroutine resumes to produce the result of the co_await expression.

I’ll be covering details of the Promise interface in a future post, but for now let’s look at the Awaitable interface.

Awaiters and Awaitables: Explaining operator co_await

The co_await operator is a new unary operator that can be applied to a value. For example: co_await someValue .

The co_await operator can only be used within the context of a coroutine. This is somewhat of a tautology though, since any function body containing use of the co_await operator, by definition, will be compiled as a coroutine.

A type that supports the co_await operator is called an Awaitable type.

Note that whether or not the co_await operator can be applied to a type can depend on the context in which the co_await expression appears. The promise type used for a coroutine can alter the meaning of a co_await expression within the coroutine via its await_transform method (more on this later).

To be more specific where required I like to use the term Normally Awaitable to describe a type that supports the co_await operator in a coroutine context whose promise type does not have an await_transform member. And I like to use the term Contextually Awaitable to describe a type that only supports the co_await operator in the context of certain types of coroutines due to the presence of an await_transform method in the coroutine’s promise type. (I’m open to better suggestions for these names here…)

An Awaiter type is a type that implements the three special methods that are called as part of a co_await expression: await_ready , await_suspend and await_resume .

Note that I have shamelessly “borrowed” the term ‘Awaiter’ here from the C# async keyword’s mechanics that is implemented in terms of a GetAwaiter() method which returns an object with an interface that is eerily similar to the C++ concept of an Awaiter. See this post for more details on C# awaiters.

Note that a type can be both an Awaitable type and an Awaiter type.

When the compiler sees a co_await <expr> expression there are actually a number of possible things it could be translated to depending on the types involved.

Obtaining the Awaiter

The first thing the compiler does is generate code to obtain the Awaiter object for the awaited value. There are a number of steps to obtaining the awaiter object which are set out in N4680 section 5.3.8(3).

Let’s assume that the promise object for the awaiting coroutine has type, P , and that promise is an l-value reference to the promise object for the current coroutine.

If the promise type, P , has a member named await_transform then <expr> is first passed into a call to promise.await_transform(<expr>) to obtain the Awaitable value, awaitable . Otherwise, if the promise type does not have an await_transform member then we use the result of evaluating <expr> directly as the Awaitable object, awaitable .

Then, if the Awaitable object, awaitable , has an applicable operator co_await() overload then this is called to obtain the Awaiter object. Otherwise the object, awaitable , is used as the awaiter object.

If we were to encode these rules into the functions get_awaitable() and get_awaiter() , they might look something like this:

template < typename P , typename T > decltype ( auto ) get_awaitable ( P & promise , T && expr ) { if constexpr ( has_any_await_transform_member_v < P > ) return promise . await_transform ( static_cast < T &&> ( expr )); else return static_cast < T &&> ( expr ); } template < typename Awaitable > decltype ( auto ) get_awaiter ( Awaitable && awaitable ) { if constexpr ( has_member_operator_co_await_v < Awaitable > ) return static_cast < Awaitable &&> ( awaitable ). operator co_await (); else if constexpr ( has_non_member_operator_co_await_v < Awaitable &&> ) return operator co_await ( static_cast < Awaitable &&> ( awaitable )); else return static_cast < Awaitable &&> ( awaitable ); }

Awaiting the Awaiter

So, assuming we have encapsulated the logic for turning the <expr> result into an Awaiter object into the above functions then the semantics of co_await <expr> can be translated (roughly) as follows:

{ auto && value = < expr > ; auto && awaitable = get_awaitable ( promise , static_cast < decltype ( value ) > ( value )); auto && awaiter = get_awaiter ( static_cast < decltype ( awaitable ) > ( awaitable )); if ( ! awaiter . await_ready ()) { using handle_t = std :: experimental :: coroutine_handle < P > ; using await_suspend_result_t = decltype ( awaiter . await_suspend ( handle_t :: from_promise ( p ))); < suspend - coroutine > if constexpr ( std :: is_void_v < await_suspend_result_t > ) { awaiter . await_suspend ( handle_t :: from_promise ( p )); < return - to - caller - or - resumer > } else { static_assert ( std :: is_same_v < await_suspend_result_t , bool > , "await_suspend() must return 'void' or 'bool'." ); if ( awaiter . await_suspend ( handle_t :: from_promise ( p ))) { < return - to - caller - or - resumer > } } < resume - point > } return awaiter . await_resume (); }

The void -returning version of await_suspend() unconditionally transfers execution back to the caller/resumer of the coroutine when the call to await_suspend() returns, whereas the bool -returning version allows the awaiter object to conditionally resume the coroutine immediately without returning to the caller/resumer.

The bool -returning version of await_suspend() can be useful in cases where the awaiter might start an async operation that can sometimes complete synchronously. In the cases where it completes synchronously, the await_suspend() method can return false to indicate that the coroutine should be immediately resumed and continue execution.

At the <suspend-coroutine> point the compiler generates some code to save the current state of the coroutine and prepare it for resumption. This includes storing the location of the <resume-point> as well as spilling any values currently held in registers into the coroutine frame memory.

The current coroutine is considered suspended after the <suspend-coroutine> operation completes. The first point at which you can observe the suspended coroutine is inside the call to await_suspend() . Once the coroutine is suspended it is then able to be resumed or destroyed.

It is the responsibility of the await_suspend() method to schedule the coroutine for resumption (or destruction) at some point in the future once the operation has completed. Note that returning false from await_suspend() counts as scheduling the coroutine for immediate resumption on the current thread.

The purpose of the await_ready() method is to allow you to avoid the cost of the <suspend-coroutine> operation in cases where it is known that the operation will complete synchronously without needing to suspend.

At the <return-to-caller-or-resumer> point execution is transferred back to the caller or resumer, popping the local stack frame but keeping the coroutine frame alive.

When (or if) the suspended coroutine is eventually resumed then the execution resumes at the <resume-point> . ie. immediately before the await_resume() method is called to obtain the result of the operation.

The return-value of the await_resume() method call becomes the result of the co_await expression. The await_resume() method can also throw an exception in which case the exception propagates out of the co_await expression.

Note that if an exception propagates out of the await_suspend() call then the coroutine is automatically resumed and the exception propagates out of the co_await expression without calling await_resume() .

Coroutine Handles

You may have noticed the use of the coroutine_handle<P> type that is passed to the await_suspend() call of a co_await expression.

This type represents a non-owning handle to the coroutine frame and can be used to resume execution of the coroutine or to destroy the coroutine frame. It can also be used to get access to the coroutine’s promise object.

The coroutine_handle type has the following (abbreviated) interface:

namespace std :: experimental { template < typename Promise > struct coroutine_handle ; template <> struct coroutine_handle < void > { bool done () const ; void resume (); void destroy (); void * address () const ; static coroutine_handle from_address ( void * address ); }; template < typename Promise > struct coroutine_handle : coroutine_handle < void > { Promise & promise () const ; static coroutine_handle from_promise ( Promise & promise ); static coroutine_handle from_address ( void * address ); }; }

When implementing Awaitable types, they key method you’ll be using on coroutine_handle will be .resume() , which should be called when the operation has completed and you want to resume execution of the awaiting coroutine. Calling .resume() on a coroutine_handle reactivates a suspended coroutine at the <resume-point> . The call to .resume() will return when the coroutine next hits a <return-to-caller-or-resumer> point.

The .destroy() method destroys the coroutine frame, calling the destructors of any in-scope variables and freeing memory used by the coroutine frame. You should generally not need to (and indeed should really avoid) calling .destroy() unless you are a library writer implementing the coroutine promise type. Normally, coroutine frames will be owned by some kind of RAII type returned from the call to the coroutine. So calling .destroy() without cooperation with the RAII object could lead to a double-destruction bug.

The .promise() method returns a reference to the coroutine’s promise object. However, like .destroy() , it is generally only useful if you are authoring coroutine promise types. You should consider the coroutine’s promise object as an internal implementation detail of the coroutine. For most Normally Awaitable types you should use coroutine_handle<void> as the parameter type to the await_suspend() method instead of coroutine_handle<Promise> .

The coroutine_handle<P>::from_promise(P& promise) function allows reconstructing the coroutine handle from a reference to the coroutine’s promise object. Note that you must ensure that the type, P , exactly matches the concrete promise type used for the coroutine frame; attempting to construct a coroutine_handle<Base> when the concrete promise type is Derived can lead to undefined behaviour.

The .address() / from_address() functions allow converting a coroutine handle to/from a void* pointer. This is primarily intended to allow passing as a ‘context’ parameter into existing C-style APIs, so you might find it useful in implementing Awaitable types in some circumstances. However, in most cases I’ve found it necessary to pass additional information through to callbacks in this ‘context’ parameter so I generally end up storing the coroutine_handle in a struct and passing a pointer to the struct in the ‘context’ parameter rather than using the .address() return-value.

Synchronisation-free async code

One of the powerful design-features of the co_await operator is the ability to execute code after the coroutine has been suspended but before execution is returned to the caller/resumer.

This allows an Awaiter object to initiate an async operation after the coroutine is already suspended, passing the coroutine_handle of the suspended coroutine to the operation which it can safely resume when the operation completes (potentially on another thread) without any additional synchronisation required.

For example, by starting an async-read operation inside await_suspend() when the coroutine is already suspended means that we can just resume the coroutine when the operation completes without needing any thread-synchronisation to coordinate the thread that started the operation and the thread that completed the operation.

Time Thread 1 Thread 2 | -------- -------- | .... Call OS - Wait for I/O event | Call await_ready() | | <supend-point> | | Call await_suspend(handle) | | Store handle in operation | V Start AsyncFileRead ---+ V +-----> <AsyncFileRead Completion Event> Load coroutine_handle from operation Call handle.resume() <resume-point> Call to await_resume() execution continues.... Call to AsyncFileRead returns Call to await_suspend() returns <return-to-caller/resumer>

One thing to be very careful of when taking advantage of this approach is that as soon as you have started the operation which publishes the coroutine handle to other threads then another thread may resume the coroutine on another thread before await_suspend() returns and may continue executing concurrently with the rest of the await_suspend() method.

The first thing the coroutine will do when it resumes is call await_resume() to get the result and then often it will immediately destruct the Awaiter object (ie. the this pointer of the await_suspend() call). The coroutine could then potentially run to completion, destructing the coroutine and promise object, all before await_suspend() returns.

So within the await_suspend() method, once it’s possible for the coroutine to be resumed concurrently on another thread, you need to make sure that you avoid accessing this or the coroutine’s .promise() object because both could already be destroyed. In general, the only things that are safe to access after the operation is started and the coroutine is scheduled for resumption are local variables within await_suspend() .

Comparison to Stackful Coroutines

I want to take a quick detour to compare this ability of the Coroutines TS stackless coroutines to execute logic after the coroutine is suspended with some existing common stackful coroutine facilities such as Win32 fibers or boost::context.

With many of the stackful coroutine frameworks, the suspend operation of a coroutine is combined with the resumption of another coroutine into a ‘context-switch’ operation. With this ‘context-switch’ operation there is typically no opportunity to execute logic after suspending the current coroutine but before transferring execution to another coroutine.

This means that if we want to implement a similar async-file-read operation on top of stackful coroutines then we have to start the operation before suspending the coroutine. It is therefore possible that the operation could complete on another thread before the coroutine is suspended and is eligible for resumption. This potential race between the operation completing on another thread and the coroutine suspending requires some kind of thread synchronisation to arbitrate and decide on the winner.

There are probably ways around this by using a trampoline context that can start the operation on behalf of the initiating context after the initiating context has been suspended. However this would require extra infrastructure and an extra context-switch to make it work and it’s possible that the overhead this introduces would be greater than the cost of the synchronisation it’s trying to avoid.

Avoiding memory allocations

Async operations often need to store some per-operation state that keeps track of the progress of the operation. This state typically needs to last for the duration of the operation and should only be freed once the operation has completed.

For example, calling async Win32 I/O functions requires you to allocate and pass a pointer to an OVERLAPPED structure. The caller is responsible for ensuring this pointer remains valid until the operation completes.

With traditional callback-based APIs this state would typically need to be allocated on the heap to ensure it has the appropriate lifetime. If you were performing many operations, you may need to allocate and free this state for each operation. If performance is an issue then a custom allocator may be used that allocates these state objects from a pool.

However, when we are using coroutines we can avoid the need to heap-allocate storage for the operation state by taking advantage of the fact that local variables within the coroutine frame will be kept alive while the coroutine is suspended.

By placing the per-operation state in the Awaiter object we can effectively “borrow” memory from the coroutine frame for storing the per-operation state for the duration of the co_await expression. Once the operation completes, the coroutine is resumed and the Awaiter object is destroyed, freeing that memory in the coroutine frame for use by other local variables.

Ultimately, the coroutine frame may still be allocated on the heap. However, once allocated, a coroutine frame can be used to execute many asynchronous operations with only that single heap allocation.

If you think about it, the coroutine frame acts as a kind of really high-performance arena memory allocator. The compiler figures out at compile time the total arena size it needs for all local variables and is then able to allocate this memory out to local variables as required with zero overhead! Try beating that with a custom allocator ;)

An example: Implementing a simple thread-synchronisation primitive

Now that we’ve covered a lot of the mechanics of the co_await operator, I want to show how to put some of this knowledge into practice by implementing a basic awaitable synchronisation primitive: An asynchronous manual-reset event.

The basic requirements of this event is that it needs to be Awaitable by multiple concurrently executing coroutines and when awaited needs to suspend the awaiting coroutine until some thread calls the .set() method, at which point any awaiting coroutines are resumed. If some thread has already called .set() then the coroutine should continue without suspending.

Ideally we’d also like to make it noexcept , require no heap allocations and have a lock-free implementation.

Edit 2017/11/23: Added example usage for async_manual_reset_event

Example usage should look something like this:

T value ; async_manual_reset_event event ; // A single call to produce a value void producer () { value = some_long_running_computation (); // Publish the value by setting the event. event . set (); } // Supports multiple concurrent consumers task <> consumer () { // Wait until the event is signalled by call to event.set() // in the producer() function. co_await event ; // Now it's safe to consume 'value' // This is guaranteed to 'happen after' assignment to 'value' std :: cout << value << std :: endl ; }

Let’s first think about the possible states this event can be in: ‘not set’ and ‘set’.

When it’s in the ‘not set’ state there is a (possibly empty) list of waiting coroutines that are waiting for it to become ‘set’.

When it’s in the ‘set’ state there won’t be any waiting coroutines as coroutines that co_await the event in this state can continue without suspending.

This state can actually be represented in a single std::atomic<void*> .

Reserve a special pointer value for the ‘set’ state. In this case we’ll use the this pointer of the event since we know that can’t be the same address as any of the list items.

pointer of the event since we know that can’t be the same address as any of the list items. Otherwise the event is in the ‘not set’ state and the value is a pointer to the head of a singly linked-list of awaiting coroutine structures.

We can avoid extra calls to allocate nodes for the linked-list on the heap by storing the nodes within an ‘awaiter’ object that is placed within the coroutine frame.

So let’s start with a class interface that looks something like this:

class async_manual_reset_event { public: async_manual_reset_event ( bool initiallySet = false ) noexcept ; // No copying/moving async_manual_reset_event ( const async_manual_reset_event & ) = delete ; async_manual_reset_event ( async_manual_reset_event && ) = delete ; async_manual_reset_event & operator = ( const async_manual_reset_event & ) = delete ; async_manual_reset_event & operator = ( async_manual_reset_event && ) = delete ; bool is_set () const noexcept ; struct awaiter ; awaiter operator co_await () const noexcept ; void set () noexcept ; void reset () noexcept ; private: friend struct awaiter ; // - 'this' => set state // - otherwise => not set, head of linked list of awaiter*. mutable std :: atomic < void *> m_state ; };

Here we have a fairly straight-forward and simple interface. The main thing to note at this point is that it has an operator co_await() method that returns an, as yet, undefined type, awaiter .

Let’s define the awaiter type now.

Defining the Awaiter

Firstly, it needs to know which async_manual_reset_event object it is going to be awaiting, so it will need a reference to the event and a constructor to initialise it.

It also needs to act as a node in a linked-list of awaiter values so it will need to hold a pointer to the next awaiter object in the list.

It also needs to store the coroutine_handle of the awaiting coroutine that is executing the co_await expression so that the event can resume the coroutine when it becomes ‘set’. We don’t care what the promise type of the coroutine is so we’ll just use a coroutine_handle<> (which is short-hand for coroutine_handle<void> ).

Finally, it needs to implement the Awaiter interface, so it needs the three special methods: await_ready , await_suspend and await_resume . We don’t need to return a value from the co_await expression so await_resume can return void .

Once we put all of that together, the basic class interface for awaiter looks like this:

struct async_manual_reset_event :: awaiter { awaiter ( const async_manual_reset_event & event ) noexcept : m_event ( event ) {} bool await_ready () const noexcept ; bool await_suspend ( std :: experimental :: coroutine_handle <> awaitingCoroutine ) noexcept ; void await_resume () noexcept {} private: const async_manual_reset_event & m_event ; std :: experimental :: coroutine_handle <> m_awaitingCoroutine ; awaiter * m_next ; };

Now, when we co_await an event, we don’t want the awaiting coroutine to suspend if the event is already set. So we can define await_ready() to return true if the event is already set.

bool async_manual_reset_event :: awaiter :: await_ready () const noexcept { return m_event . is_set (); }

Next, let’s look at the await_suspend() method. This is usually where most of the magic happens in an awaitable type.

First it will need to stash the coroutine handle of the awaiting coroutine into the m_awaitingCoroutine member so that the event can later call .resume() on it.

Then once we’ve done that we need to try and atomically enqueue the awaiter onto the linked list of waiters. If we successfully enqueue it then we return true to indicate that we don’t want to resume the coroutine immediately, otherwise if we find that the event has concurrently been changed to the ‘set’ state then we return false to indicate that the coroutine should be resumed immediately.

bool async_manual_reset_event :: awaiter :: await_suspend ( std :: experimental :: coroutine_handle <> awaitingCoroutine ) noexcept { // Special m_state value that indicates the event is in the 'set' state. const void * const setState = & m_event ; // Remember the handle of the awaiting coroutine. m_awaitingCoroutine = awaitingCoroutine ; // Try to atomically push this awaiter onto the front of the list. void * oldValue = m_event . m_state . load ( std :: memory_order_acquire ); do { // Resume immediately if already in 'set' state. if ( oldValue == setState ) return false ; // Update linked list to point at current head. m_next = static_cast < awaiter *> ( oldValue ); // Finally, try to swap the old list head, inserting this awaiter // as the new list head. } while ( ! m_event . m_state . compare_exchange_weak ( oldValue , this , std :: memory_order_release , std :: memory_order_acquire )); // Successfully enqueued. Remain suspended. return true ; }

Note that we use ‘acquire’ memory order when loading the old state so that if we read the special ‘set’ value then we have visibility of writes that occurred prior to the call to ‘set()’.

We require ‘release’ sematics if the compare-exchange succeeds so that a subsequent call to ‘set()’ will see our writes to m_awaitingCoroutine and prior writes to the coroutine state.

Filling out the rest of the event class

Now that we have defined the awaiter type, let’s go back and look at the implementation of the async_manual_reset_event methods.

First, the constructor. It needs to initialise to either the ‘not set’ state with the empty list of waiters (ie. nullptr ) or initialise to the ‘set’ state (ie. this ).

async_manual_reset_event :: async_manual_reset_event ( bool initiallySet ) noexcept : m_state ( initiallySet ? this : nullptr ) {}

Next, the is_set() method is pretty straight-forward - it’s ‘set’ if it has the special value this :

bool async_manual_reset_event :: is_set () const noexcept { return m_state . load ( std :: memory_order_acquire ) == this ; }

Next, the reset() method. If it’s in the ‘set’ state we want to transition back to the empty-list ‘not set’ state, otherwise leave it as it is.

void async_manual_reset_event :: reset () noexcept { void * oldValue = this ; m_state . compare_exchange_strong ( oldValue , nullptr , std :: memory_order_acquire ); }

With the set() method, we want to transition to the ‘set’ state by exchanging the current state with the special ‘set’ value, this , and then examine what the old value was. If there were any waiting coroutines then we want to resume each of them sequentially in turn before returning.

void async_manual_reset_event :: set () noexcept { // Needs to be 'release' so that subsequent 'co_await' has // visibility of our prior writes. // Needs to be 'acquire' so that we have visibility of prior // writes by awaiting coroutines. void * oldValue = m_state . exchange ( this , std :: memory_order_acq_rel ); if ( oldValue != this ) { // Wasn't already in 'set' state. // Treat old value as head of a linked-list of waiters // which we have now acquired and need to resume. auto * waiters = static_cast < awaiter *> ( oldValue ); while ( waiters != nullptr ) { // Read m_next before resuming the coroutine as resuming // the coroutine will likely destroy the awaiter object. auto * next = waiters -> m_next ; waiters -> m_awaitingCoroutine . resume (); waiters = next ; } } }

Finally, we need to implement the operator co_await() method. This just needs to construct an awaiter object.

async_manual_reset_event :: awaiter async_manual_reset_event :: operator co_await () const noexcept { return awaiter { * this }; }

And there we have it. An awaitable asynchronous manual-reset event that has a lock-free, memory-allocation-free, noexcept implementation.

If you want to have a play with the code or check out what it compiles down to under MSVC and Clang have a look at the source on godbolt.

You can also find an implementation of this class available in the cppcoro library, along with a number of other useful awaitable types such as async_mutex and async_auto_reset_event .

Closing Off

This post has looked at how the operator co_await is implemented and defined in terms of the Awaitable and Awaiter concepts.

It has also walked through how to implement an awaitable async thread-synchronisation primitive that takes advantage of the fact that awaiter objects are allocated on the coroutine frame to avoid additional heap allocations.

I hope this post has helped to demystify the new co_await operator for you.

In the next post I’ll explore the Promise concept and how a coroutine-type author can customise the behaviour of their coroutine.

Thanks

I want to call out special thanks to Gor Nishanov for patiently and enthusiastically answering my many questions on coroutines over the last couple of years.

And also to Eric Niebler for reviewing and providing feedback on an early draft of this post.