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。

我强迫自己只使用一个return语句，因为在某种意义上它会产生代码气味。让我解释一下:

function isCorrect($param1, $param2, $param3) {
    $toret = false;
    if ($param1 != $param2) {
        if ($param1 == ($param3 * 2)) {
            if ($param2 == ($param3 / 3)) {
                $toret = true;
            } else {
                $error = 'Error 3';
            }
        } else {
            $error = 'Error 2';
        }
    } else {
        $error = 'Error 1';
    }
    return $toret;
}

(条件是任意的…)

条件越多，函数越大，读取起来就越困难。因此，如果您熟悉代码气味，您就会意识到它，并想要重构代码。两种可能的解决方案是:

多的回报 重构为单独的函数

多的回报

function isCorrect($param1, $param2, $param3) {
    if ($param1 == $param2)       { $error = 'Error 1'; return false; }
    if ($param1 != ($param3 * 2)) { $error = 'Error 2'; return false; }
    if ($param2 != ($param3 / 3)) { $error = 'Error 3'; return false; }
    return true;
}

单独的功能

function isEqual($param1, $param2) {
    return $param1 == $param2;
}

function isDouble($param1, $param2) {
    return $param1 == ($param2 * 2);
}

function isThird($param1, $param2) {
    return $param1 == ($param2 / 3);
}

function isCorrect($param1, $param2, $param3) {
    return !isEqual($param1, $param2)
        && isDouble($param1, $param3)
        && isThird($param2, $param3);
}

当然，它会更长，而且有点乱，但在以这种方式重构函数的过程中，我们已经

创建了许多可重用的函数， 使函数更具人类可读性，以及 函数的重点在于为什么值是正确的。

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.

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.

对于足够小的函数来说，多个出口点很好——也就是说，可以在一个屏幕长度上完整地查看函数。如果一个冗长的函数同样包含多个出口点，则表明该函数可以进一步分割。

也就是说，除非绝对必要，否则我避免使用多出口功能。在更复杂的函数中，由于一些模糊的行中出现的一些错误返回，我感到了错误的痛苦。

你可以这样做，只实现一个返回语句-在开始时声明它，在结束时输出它-问题解决了:

$content = "";
$return = false;

if($content != "")
{
  $return = true;
}
else 
{
  $return = false;
}

return $return;