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。

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.

我经常在一个方法的开头有几个语句来返回“简单”的情况。例如，这个:

public void DoStuff(Foo foo)
{
    if (foo != null)
    {
        ...
    }
}

．.． (恕我直言)可以像这样变得更具可读性:

public void DoStuff(Foo foo)
{
    if (foo == null) return;

    ...
}

所以，是的，我认为从一个函数/方法中有多个“出口点”是很好的。

I always avoid multiple return statements. Even in small functions. Small functions can become larger, and tracking the multiple return paths makes it harder (to my small mind) to keep track of what is going on. A single return also makes debugging easier. I've seen people post that the only alternative to multiple return statements is a messy arrow of nested IF statements 10 levels deep. While I certain agree that such coding does occur, it isn't the only option. I wouldn't make the choice between a multiple return statements and a nest of IFs, I'd refactor it so you'd eliminate both. And that is how I code. The following code eliminates both issues and, in my mind, is very easy to read:

public string GetResult()
{
    string rv = null;
    bool okay = false;

    okay = PerformTest(1);

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(2);
    }

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(3);
    }

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(4);
    };

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(5);
    }

    if (okay)
    {
        rv = "All Tests Passed";
    }

    return rv;
}

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。

在一个没有副作用的函数中，没有理由有多个返回值，你应该用函数式的风格来编写它们。在有副作用的方法中，事情更有顺序(时间索引)，因此您使用命令式风格编写，使用return语句作为停止执行的命令。

换句话说，如果可能的话，尽量采用这种风格

return a > 0 ?
  positively(a):
  negatively(a);

在这

if (a > 0)
  return positively(a);
else
  return negatively(a);

如果您发现自己编写了几层嵌套的条件，可能有一种方法可以重构它，例如使用谓词列表。如果您发现If和else在语法上相差很大，您可能希望将其分解为更小的函数。跨越超过一屏文本的条件块很难阅读。

没有适用于每一种语言的严格规则。像只有一个return语句这样的东西不会使你的代码好。但是好的代码将允许您以这种方式编写函数。