Wow, thanks for spotting this! I’m embarrassed I missed it.

Looks like the bug is in the suspending createWindow() function. When we invoke the block() parameter (which, by the way, I’ve renamed to onWindowOpened() after our previous thread), we call window.dispose() immediately afterwards. But the lambda function doesn’t just need to wait for its own code; it also has a CoroutineScope receiver which it can use to launch additional coroutines.

The solution is to wrap block()/onWindowOpened() with its own coroutineScope { … }:

suspend fun createWindow(
  title: String,
  onWindowOpened: suspend CoroutineScope.(JFrame) -> Unit
): Unit = withContext(Dispatchers.Main) {
  val window = JFrame(title)
  window.defaultCloseOperation = JFrame.DISPOSE_ON_CLOSE
  window.size = Dimension(400, 300)
  launch {
    window.addWindowListener(object : WindowAdapter() {
      override fun windowClosed(e: WindowEvent) = this@launch.cancel()
    })
    window.isVisible = true
    try {
      coroutineScope { onWindowOpened(window) }
    } finally {
      window.dispose()
    }
  }
}

This ensures the try block waits for the child coroutines as well as the suspending code. Adding a CoroutineScope receiver to an already-suspending function is a bit of an unusual pattern—it’s something I’d only ever really do in higher-order functions like this one. You can see the same pattern in the launch() and async() functions. It’s really just a convenience thing. Without it, callers would still be able to launch child coroutines by adding a coroutineScope() block inside the lambda code block. In other words, the two working options would be:

• createWindow(…) { launch { … } } + coroutineScope { onWindowOpened(window) }, or
• createWindow(…) { coroutineScope { launch { … } } } + onWindowOpened(window)

Evidently I changed my mind halfway through implementing it, and ended up halfway between the two options.

I might add a quick note next to the original createWindow() function explaining this extra coroutineScope(), since it’s a little unusual.

Thank you again for reporting the bug!