Hi :)

I think what the standard offers right now is not for the masses. Next standard versions should improve on this.

@@MeetingCPP I don't mean the libraray. The very definition of the coroutine itself is now over-complicated. Simpler syntax/semantics for a very basic coroutine is possible IMO. In its current shape, it is by no means similar to any fundamental programing concept. Too abstract a thing with lots of unnecessary coupling with many unnecessary and unrelated aspects: Memory management, error handling, generic programing, special std library identifiers; basically a Frankenstein of all beasts in C++. Not a good starting point to attract and teach new programmers. I wish an alternate way to define coroutines were introduced to the core language. I do not mean a massive boilerplate library (those could be done without a formal definition of coroutines, using implementation defined blackboxes). It is best to be able to define a coroutine without ever refering to any identifiers in `std` or 3rd party libraries.

@@faridmehrabi2761 Totally agree in this point. A very basic coroutine with easy to learn and easy to use syntax is needed. Sure, there might be use cases or corner cases which are not possible with such a basic version, but that corner cases could be omitted in the first place and added later with an opt-in complex coroutine. As I saw now several videos/tutorials what you all have to implement and most of the things come out of no where, e.g., the compiler requires that type X in class Y exists (ok, which 100 types I must/can/should implement then and what options do I have?), its a real mess. At the end you are writing 100 and 100 lines of code instead of writing only 10 lines without coroutines. A coroutine is not much more than class with methods and a state (its members). I really think, the coroutines of C++ are useless, similar to std::regex what is also useless but for performance reasons.

@@nurso56 I can make some propositions; but I don't have any audience, not much feedback, not a voice in general. I can do it with one single keyword and a minor syntax addition, and get most of the required functionality and requirements(omitting the memory and exception handling stuff). It can have a slightly different name than coroutines, as a simpler alternative.

@@faridmehrabi2761 What about C-style static variables, like int counter(void) { static int nr = 0; return nr++; } Isn't that already a simple way of doing basic coroutines, or is there something missing with it?

Licensing issues... (GPL code...)

@@MeetingCPP ok thanks In which part of the library it was used GPL code. Just wondering for the purpose of knowledge.

Nico had modified parts of an STL implementation under GPL and added part of this code to his own library if I remember correctly.

@@MeetingCPP ok. Thank you. That make sense.

As the conference organizer I had to make sure not to get sick during or after the conference. So Mask all day it was.

@@MeetingCPP Thank you for organizing, I watched some of the lectures and Andrei/Sean AMAs and they were great. It's greatly appreciated.