有人可能会说……如果在执行函数的任务之前必须满足多个条件，那么在满足这些条件之前不要调用函数:

而不是:

function doStuff(foo) {
    if (foo != null) return;
}

Or

function doStuff(foo) {
    if (foo !== null) {
        ...
    }
}

在foo != null之前不要调用doStuff

if(foo != null) doStuff(foo);

这要求每个调用站点确保在调用之前满足调用的条件。如果有多个调用站点，则该逻辑最好放在单独的函数中、待调用函数的方法中(假设它们是一级公民)或代理中。

关于函数是否在数学上是可证明的这个话题，要考虑逻辑而不是语法。如果一个函数有多个返回点，这并不意味着(默认情况下)它在数学上不可证明。

有人可能会说……如果在执行函数的任务之前必须满足多个条件，那么在满足这些条件之前不要调用函数:

而不是:

function doStuff(foo) {
    if (foo != null) return;
}

Or

function doStuff(foo) {
    if (foo !== null) {
        ...
    }
}

在foo != null之前不要调用doStuff

if(foo != null) doStuff(foo);

这要求每个调用站点确保在调用之前满足调用的条件。如果有多个调用站点，则该逻辑最好放在单独的函数中、待调用函数的方法中(假设它们是一级公民)或代理中。

关于函数是否在数学上是可证明的这个话题，要考虑逻辑而不是语法。如果一个函数有多个返回点，这并不意味着(默认情况下)它在数学上不可证明。

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.

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。

在其他条件相同的情况下，单一出口点可以显著提高代码的可读性。 但有一个问题:流行的结构

resulttype res;
if if if...
return res;

是假的，“res=”不比“return”好多少。它只有一个return语句，但函数实际结束的地方有多个点。

如果你的函数有多个返回值(或“res=”s)，最好将它分解成几个较小的函数，每个函数都有一个退出点。