我可能会因此被讨厌，但理想情况下，我认为根本不应该有return语句，函数应该只返回它最后一个表达式，在完全理想的情况下，应该只包含一个。

所以不

function name(arg) {
    if (arg.failure?)
        return;

    //code for non failure
}

而是

function name(arg) {
    if (arg.failure?)
        voidConstant
    else {
        //code for non failure


}

不是表达式的if语句和return语句对我来说是一种非常可疑的实践。

一般来说，我尝试从一个函数中只有一个出口点。然而，有时这样做实际上会创建一个比必要的更复杂的函数体，在这种情况下，最好有多个出口点。它确实需要基于结果的复杂性进行“判断”，但目标应该是在不牺牲复杂性和可理解性的情况下尽可能减少出口点。

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.

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;
}

作为嵌套if的替代方法，有一种使用do/while(false)在任何地方爆发的方法:

    function()
    {
        HRESULT error = S_OK;

        do
        {
            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
            {
                error = OPERATION1FAILED;
                break;
            }

            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
            {
                error = OPERATION2FAILED;
                break;
            }

            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
                break;
            }
            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
            {
                error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                break;
            }
        } while (false);

        return error;
    }

这为您提供了一个出口点，允许您进行其他嵌套操作，但仍然不是真正的深层结构。如果你不喜欢成功，你可以做任何失败的事情。这类事情还允许您在任意两个其他检查之间添加其他代码，而无需重新缩进任何内容。

如果你真的疯了，整个If块也可以宏化。: D

    #define BREAKIFFAILED(x,y) if (!SUCCEEDED((x))) { error = (Y); break; }

    do
    {
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation1(), OPERATION1FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation2(), OPERATION2FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation3(), OPERATION3FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation4(), OPERATION4FAILED)
    } while (false);

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;