Coroutine Types

By Titus Winters

The first hint of standard library design that takes advantage of coroutines (P1056) came through the Library Evolution Working Group (LEWG, responsible for design for the C++ standard library) during the Rapperswil meeting this summer. It was … surprising. As much as I want coroutines in the language, the design smell here was disconcerting. I want to point out what LEWG saw before we commit to this direction irrevocably - coroutine types as currently designed are baffling.


Coroutines are an important new language feature for C++, but also a very old idea. In its current incarnation, the major force behind Coroutines in C++ is Gor Nishanov (whom I absolutely love working with). If you aren’t familiar with the history, or want a refresher on how Coroutines are a generalization of subroutines (function calls), try watching Gor’s talk from CppCon 2015: “C++ Coroutines, a negative overhead abstraction.

In a function call/subroutine world, the caller invokes some function, the function runs, and then the function returns execution control to the caller. We’re all familiar with this. In an asynchronous programming model we often have a logically-related sequence of operations we want to execute (for instance, kicking off a sequence of async operations one by one) but cannot express as a single function, because we need to jump in and out of that flow of control. As a result, all necessary state gets bundled up and passed around as a “continuation,” to be invoked at some point in the future. This is generally known as continuation passing and you see it in languages/libraries/frameworks that are very functional-style, very asynchronous, or very callback-driven. It’s powerful, but not nearly as clear as direct style programming.

Coroutines are an attempt to provide a language-level ability to write in a direct style and execute in a continuation-passing style. For example, consider an example from P1056:

struct record {
  int id;
  std::string name;
  std::string description;
std::task<record> load_record(int id);
std::task<> save_record(record r);
std::task<void> modify_record() {
  record r = co_await load_record(123);
  r.description = "Look, ma, no blocking!";
  co_await save_record(std::move(r));

In this snippet we’re imagining a to-be-specified type std::task<T> that is in many ways a lighter-weight std::future<T>. It isn’t promising anything to do with concurrency or synchronization, and has no allocation or shared state. Functions that return std::task are coroutines - they can suspend (by calling co_await) and return execution to the caller - leaving any variables local to the coroutine’s stack intact.

A caller can invoke modify_record() as a coroutine, allowing the caller to be part of the continuation chain. This requires returning a coroutine-enabled type like std::task<> - but note that the types don’t have to line up.

std::task<void> f() {
  std::cout << "About to modify" << std::endl;
  co_await modify_record();
  std::cout << "Done modifying" << std::endl;

In such an invocation, the two log statements will happen in order, but all sorts of computation may happen in the caller of f() between the two log outputs, because execution is yielded at the point of the co_await “call” to modify_record(). (This is expected: that is the whole point of coroutines.)

Note that because any function that uses the new coroutine keywords is now by definition a coroutine, there are some potential surprises. For example, if we were to invoke f() directly:

void invoke_f() {

This (maybe) compiles, but generates none of the logging output because the body of f() is not executed at all until something invokes co_await on the task returned by f() - which we just ignored. Many/most coroutine types are thus expected to be marked [[nodiscard]] - there is no point in calling a function that returns a type like std::task<> without operating on the task. (Remember: pay attention to those [[nodiscard]] warnings!)

The current specification provides no way for an ordinary (non-coroutine) function to usefully invoke a coroutine that returns task<T> nor to obtain the T that it wraps. In order to invoke f() like a function we would need some special coroutine-execution machinery - the cppcoro repository provides this in the form of a sync_wait() function. The specification of a sync_wait() has not yet been produced, but there will eventually be one overarching sync_wait() that works with anything satisfying the Awaitable concept.

There are a host of other interesting points and gotchas in coroutines, and also a competing proposal produced by my Google colleagues (P1063). All of that additional background is interesting and worth getting into, but is separate from the point of this post.

The task<> API

The main question here is “What does std::task<> look like?” Given that coroutines are inherently slicing apart something as fundamental as “what is a function call,” we’re likely going to see something interesting/exotic in the best case. Whether those exotic results are acceptable in trade for this very powerful feature is clearly a matter of taste, and what I want to bring to the attention of the community.

That said, here is the complete callable API for the proposed std::task:

template <typename T> class [[nodiscard]] task {
    task(task&& rhs) noexcept;
    auto operator co_await();  // exposition only

Take a close look at that.

This is a type that wraps a T … but has no interfaces that mention that T. This is a type that can be move-constructed, and destroyed. Per the “exposition only” comment, it can be used via the new co_await keyword. That’s it. Strictly speaking, co_await doesn’t even return T, it returns a bunch of customization machinery that configures coroutine machinery so that you can get a T. The only way for a user to know that co_await yields a T is to see it in use, or read the comments. The user-facing API for coroutine types like this do not actually show you what you expect to see.

This would represent an unusual step for type design - producing types whose interface does not (and arguably cannot) describe its expected usage. IDEs are going to choke on this, autocompleters are useless, documentation will be novel at best.

The simplest current implementation of task<> (thanks Gor!) runs about 40 lines and is illustrative - most of the body of such a type is detailing its interaction with the coroutine machinery and definition of its related promise type.

It’s well worth spending a few minutes reading through P1056 and the above implementation link. It is certainly possible that coroutines require this complexity and subtlety - it is a fundamental extension to basic programming concepts. But we should be sure that this is well understood including its impact on the language, library, documentation, and the rest of the ecosystem. We should also be sure that we have found the right abstraction boundaries, not just something that works.

Coroutine Type Design

Since the earliest days of the Coroutines proposals it’s been clear that implementing coroutine types is not something that we expect most developers to do: this is specialist work, and libraries like Abseil, Boost, and the standard library will probably do the heavy lifting for most developers. Considering the results that we’ve been able to see with the coroutines Technical Specification and coroutine demos, that’s probably fine - this is powerful, and the resulting user code is pretty reasonable.

That said, if this is the style of specification and user-facing API for coroutine types, I have concerns. The user-facing APIs produced using this machinery are nonsensical and impossible to understand with normal patterns (like “reading the API”) - all of their details are literally hidden in the coroutine customization machinery. It’s technically correct and functional, of course, but something smells wrong.

On the other hand, some coroutine-backed designs seem basically OK. A generator demonstration uses iterators as the user-facing portion of the coroutine API, and the iterator certainly tells me that I get a T when I dereference generator<T>::begin(). Perhaps this is nothing more than “asynchrony is complicated” which should come as little surprise.

Looking at both the generator example and task<> example (both graciously provided by Gor), perhaps the real question is this: how confident are we (the committee and the community) that promise_type and the other coroutine customization points are the right design? Clearly they are a correct and functional design ; as always, I’m terribly impressed with the end result of the code that uses all of this. I’m less convinced that all of these apparent knobs are proveably the right set of basic operations and customization.

I’m not sure what the better answer is, and I have largely been uninvolved in my colleagues’ proposal (P1063) - I’m not sure that such a proposal would produce clearer types or customization points that I was more confident in. But even absent a better proposal, I want the community to look at this and pause. Is anyone else uncomfortable with designs like these? Are we sure we want to rush to include coroutines in the next C++ release, even with these design smells?

As is often the case, I urge the committee and community to take the time to be sure. If we proceed as-is, we’re likely stuck with these designs for a long time to come.

Subscribe to the Abseil Blog