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。

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.

如果你最终得到了很多返回值，那么你的代码可能有问题。否则，我同意有时能够从子例程的多个位置返回是很好的，特别是当它使代码更干净的时候。

Perl 6:坏例子

sub Int_to_String( Int i ){
  given( i ){
    when 0 { return "zero" }
    when 1 { return "one" }
    when 2 { return "two" }
    when 3 { return "three" }
    when 4 { return "four" }
    ...
    default { return undef }
  }
}

这样写会更好吗

Perl 6:好例子

@Int_to_String = qw{
  zero
  one
  two
  three
  four
  ...
}
sub Int_to_String( Int i ){
  return undef if i < 0;
  return undef unless i < @Int_to_String.length;
  return @Int_to_String[i]
}

注意，这只是一个简单的例子

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;
}

我认为在不同的情况下，不同的方法更好。例如，如果您应该在返回之前处理返回值，则应该有一个退出点。但在其他情况下，使用多次返回会更舒服。

一个音符。如果在某些情况下，你应该在返回之前处理返回值，但不是所有情况下，最好的解决方案(IMHO)是定义一个像ProcessVal这样的方法，并在返回之前调用它:

var retVal = new RetVal();

if(!someCondition)
    return ProcessVal(retVal);

if(!anotherCondition)
   return retVal;

总是要求单一的返回类型是没有意义的。我认为这更像是一个标志，表明某些东西可能需要简化。有时有多个回报是必要的，但通常你可以通过至少尝试有一个退出点来简化事情。