Well, maybe I'm one of the few people here old enough to remember one of the big reasons why "only one return statement" was pushed so hard. It's so the compiler can emit more efficient code. For each function call, the compiler typically pushes some registers on the stack to preserve their values. This way, the function can use those registers for temporary storage. When the function returns, those saved registers have to be popped off the stack and back into the registers. That's one POP (or MOV -(SP),Rn) instruction per register. If you have a bunch of return statements, then either each one has to pop all the registers (which makes the compiled code bigger) or the compiler has to keep track of which registers might have been modified and only pop those (decreasing code size, but increasing compilation time).

今天仍然坚持使用一个return语句的一个原因是易于自动重构。如果您的IDE支持方法提取重构(选择一系列行并将它们转换为一个方法)，那么如果您想提取的行中有一个return语句，特别是如果您正在返回一个值，则很难做到这一点。

作为指导原则，我投票支持单次返回。这有助于一个常见的代码清理处理…例如，看看下面的代码…

void ProcessMyFile (char *szFileName)
{
   FILE *fp = NULL;
   char *pbyBuffer = NULL:

   do {

      fp = fopen (szFileName, "r");

      if (NULL == fp) {

         break;
      }

      pbyBuffer = malloc (__SOME__SIZE___);

      if (NULL == pbyBuffer) {

         break;
      }

      /*** Do some processing with file ***/

   } while (0);

   if (pbyBuffer) {

      free (pbyBuffer);
   }

   if (fp) {

      fclose (fp);
   }
}

Structured programming says you should only ever have one return statement per function. This is to limit the complexity. Many people such as Martin Fowler argue that it is simpler to write functions with multiple return statements. He presents this argument in the classic refactoring book he wrote. This works well if you follow his other advice and write small functions. I agree with this point of view and only strict structured programming purists adhere to single return statements per function.

我目前正在开发一个代码库，其中有两个人盲目地赞同“单点退出”理论，我可以告诉你，从经验来看，这是一个非常可怕的实践。这使得代码极其难以维护，我将向您展示原因。

根据“单点退出”理论，你不可避免地会得到这样的代码:

function()
{
    HRESULT error = S_OK;

    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
    {
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
        {
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
                {
                }
                else
                {
                    error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                }
            }
            else
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
            }
        }
        else
        {
            error = OPERATION2FAILED;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        error = OPERATION1FAILED;
    }

    return error;
}

这不仅使代码难以理解，而且以后还需要返回并在1和2之间添加一个操作。您必须缩进整个该死的函数，并确保所有if/else条件和大括号都正确匹配。

这种方法使代码维护极其困难，而且容易出错。

我想说，武断地决定不使用多个出口点是非常不明智的，因为我发现这种技术在实践中一次又一次地有用，事实上，为了清晰起见，我经常将现有的代码重构为多个出口点。我们可以这样比较这两种方法:-

string fooBar(string s, int? i) {
  string ret = "";
  if(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(s) && i != null) {
    var res = someFunction(s, i);

    bool passed = true;
    foreach(var r in res) {
      if(!r.Passed) {
        passed = false;
        break;
      }
    }

    if(passed) {
      // Rest of code...
    }
  }

  return ret;
}

将此与允许多个出口点的代码进行比较

string fooBar(string s, int? i) {
  var ret = "";
  if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(s) || i == null) return null;

  var res = someFunction(s, i);

  foreach(var r in res) {
      if(!r.Passed) return null;
  }

  // Rest of code...

  return ret;
}

我认为后者要清楚得多。据我所知，现在对多个退出点的批评是一种相当过时的观点。

没有人提到或引用代码完成，所以我就这么做。

17.1返回

尽量减少每个例程的返回次数。如果在底部阅读一个例程，你没有意识到它可能会返回到上面的某个地方，那么理解它就更难了。

在增强可读性时使用返回。在某些例程中，一旦知道了答案，就希望立即将其返回给调用例程。如果例程以不需要任何清理的方式定义，则不立即返回意味着必须编写更多代码。