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。

我倾向于认为函数中间的return语句是不好的。您可以使用返回在函数的顶部构建一些保护子句，当然也可以告诉编译器在函数的末尾返回什么，但函数中间的返回很容易被忽略，并且会使函数更难解释。

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。

我曾经使用过糟糕的编码标准，强迫你使用单一的退出路径，如果函数不是琐碎的，结果几乎总是非结构化的意大利面条——你最终会遇到许多中断和继续。

I've seen it in coding standards for C++ that were a hang-over from C, as if you don't have RAII or other automatic memory management then you have to clean up for each return, which either means cut-and-paste of the clean-up or a goto (logically the same as 'finally' in managed languages), both of which are considered bad form. If your practices are to use smart pointers and collections in C++ or another automatic memory system, then there isn't a strong reason for it, and it become all about readability, and more of a judgement call.

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.