是否有充分的理由说明在函数中只有一个return语句是一个更好的实践?
或者在逻辑上正确的情况下,可以从函数中返回,这意味着函数中可能有许多返回语句?
是否有充分的理由说明在函数中只有一个return语句是一个更好的实践?
或者在逻辑上正确的情况下,可以从函数中返回,这意味着函数中可能有许多返回语句?
当前回答
函数中return语句越多,该方法的复杂性就越高。如果您发现自己想知道是否有太多的return语句,那么您可能需要问问自己,该函数中是否有太多的代码行。
但是,不是,一个/多个返回语句并没有错。在某些语言中,这是一种比其他语言(C)更好的实践(c++)。
其他回答
使用单一出口点可以降低圈复杂度,因此,从理论上讲,可以降低在修改代码时引入错误的可能性。然而,实践往往表明需要更务实的方法。因此,我倾向于只有一个出口点,但如果可读性更好,允许我的代码有多个出口点。
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。
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.
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。
我想说的是,你应该有尽可能多的需要,或者任何使代码更干净的(如保护子句)。
我个人从来没有听过/见过任何“最佳实践”说你应该只有一个返回语句。
在大多数情况下,我倾向于根据逻辑路径尽快退出函数(保护子句就是一个很好的例子)。