Reciprocally-resuming coroutines - asynchronous

Question

I apologize beforehand for the length of this question. I have tried to make it as succinct as possible, but it's just a rather complicated beast.
In chapter 24 of Ierusalimschy's Programming in Lua (4th ed.), the author presents a toy ("ugly") implementation of any asynchronous I/O library, like this one1:
-- filename: async.lua
-- Based (with several modifications) on Listing 24.3 (p. 246) of *Programming
-- in Lua*, 4th edition.
local async = {}
local queue = {}
local function enqueue (command) table.insert(queue, command) end
function async.readline (stream, callback)
enqueue(function () callback(stream:read()) end)
end
function async.writeline (stream, line, callback)
enqueue(function () callback(stream:write(line)) end)
end
function async.stop () enqueue("stop") end
function async.runloop ()
while true do
local next_command = table.remove(queue, 1)
if next_command == "stop" then break end
next_command()
end
end
return async
The author uses this toy library to illustrate some applications of coroutines, such as the scheme shown below for running "synchronous code on top of the asynchronous library"2:
-- Based (with several modifications) on Listing 24.5 (p. 248) of *Programming
-- in Lua*, 4th edition.
local async = require "async"
function run (synchronous_code)
local co = coroutine.create(function ()
synchronous_code()
async.stop()
end)
local wrapper = function ()
local status, result = assert(coroutine.resume(co))
return result
end
wrapper()
async.runloop()
end
function getline (stream)
local co = coroutine.running()
local callback = function (line) assert(coroutine.resume(co, line)) end
async.readline(stream, callback)
local line = coroutine.yield()
return line
end
function putline (stream, line)
local co = coroutine.running()
local callback = function () assert(coroutine.resume(co)) end
async.writeline(stream, line, callback)
coroutine.yield()
end
The author uses this technique to implement a function that prints to stdout in reverse order the lines it read from stdin:
function synchronous_code ()
local lines = {}
local input = io.input()
local output = io.output()
while true do
local line = getline(input)
if not line then break end
table.insert(lines, line)
end
for i = #lines, 1, -1 do putline(output, lines[i] .. "\n") end
end
run(synchronous_code)
The general idea is that the run function creates a coroutine that "registers" itself (through the callbacks created by getline and putline) into the asynchronous library's main loop. Whenever the asynchronous library's main loop executes one of these callbacks, it resumes the coroutine, which can do a bit more of its work, including registering the next callback with the main loop.
The run function gets the ball rolling by invoking the wrapper function, which, in turn, "resumes" (actually starts) the coroutine. The coroutine then runs until it encounters the first yield statement, which, in this example, happens within getline, right after getline has registered a callback into the async library's queue. Then the wrapper function regains control and returns. Finally, run invokes async.runloop. As async.runloop starts processing its queue, it resumes the coroutine, and off we go. The "synchronous code" (running within the coroutine) continues until the next getline or putline yields (after registering a callback), and async's main loop takes over again.
So far so good. But then, in Exercise 24.4 (p. 249), the author asks:
Exercise 24.4: Write a line iterator for the coroutine-based library (Listing 24.5), so that you can read the file with a for loop.
("Listing 24.5" refers to the code in the second code fragment above, where run, getline, and putline are defined.)
I am completely stumped with this one. In the example above, the coroutine "delivers" the lines it reads by writing them to stdout, which it can do all by itself. In contrast, the iterator requested by Exercise 24.4 would have to deliver its lines to a different coroutine, the one that is doing the iteration.
The only way that I can imagine this could happen is if the two coroutines could reciprocally resume each other. Is that even possible? I have not been able to construct a simple example of this, and would appreciate to see code that does it3.
Also, it seems to me that for this to work at all, one would need to implement an object with a write method (so that it can be passed to putline) that is ultimately responsible for delivering lines (somehow) to the iterator's coroutine.
1I have changed some superficial details, such as the names of variables, indentation, etc. The overall structure and function are unchanged.
2Again, I have changed some inessential details, to make the code easier for me to follow.
3 It is worth noting that the remaining two exercises for this chapter (24.5 and 24.6) are both about implementing systems involving multiple concurrent coroutines. Therefore, it is not farfetched to imagine that Exercise 24.4 is also about having two coroutines talking to each other.

Answer 1

I believe you're completely overthinking this exercise. The way I understand it, you're only meant to write a synchronous-style for iterator that runs within the synchronous code given to the run function. Taking the third code block as a base:
function for_file(file)
return function(file)
return getline(file)
end, file, nil
end
function synchronous_code ()
local lines = {}
local input = io.input()
local output = io.output()
for line in for_line(input) do
table.insert(lines, line)
end
for i = #lines, 1, -1 do putline(output, lines[i] .. "\n") end
end
run(synchronous_code)
As you can see, you don't really need to be aware of the coroutines at all for this to work, which is kind of the point of the library.