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。

我目前正在开发一个代码库，其中有两个人盲目地赞同“单点退出”理论，我可以告诉你，从经验来看，这是一个非常可怕的实践。这使得代码极其难以维护，我将向您展示原因。

根据“单点退出”理论，你不可避免地会得到这样的代码:

function()
{
    HRESULT error = S_OK;

    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
    {
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
        {
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
                {
                }
                else
                {
                    error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                }
            }
            else
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
            }
        }
        else
        {
            error = OPERATION2FAILED;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        error = OPERATION1FAILED;
    }

    return error;
}

这不仅使代码难以理解，而且以后还需要返回并在1和2之间添加一个操作。您必须缩进整个该死的函数，并确保所有if/else条件和大括号都正确匹配。

这种方法使代码维护极其困难，而且容易出错。

I lean towards using guard clauses to return early and otherwise exit at the end of a method. The single entry and exit rule has historical significance and was particularly helpful when dealing with legacy code that ran to 10 A4 pages for a single C++ method with multiple returns (and many defects). More recently, accepted good practice is to keep methods small which makes multiple exits less of an impedance to understanding. In the following Kronoz example copied from above, the question is what occurs in //Rest of code...?:

void string fooBar(string s, int? i) {

  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;
}

我意识到这个例子有点做作，但我很想把foreach循环重构成一个LINQ语句，然后将其视为一个保护子句。同样，在一个人为的例子中，代码的意图并不明显，someFunction()可能会有一些其他副作用，或者结果可能会在代码的// Rest中使用....

if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(s) || i == null) return null;
if (someFunction(s, i).Any(r => !r.Passed)) return null;

给出以下重构函数:

void string fooBar(string s, int? i) {

  if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(s) || i == null) return null;
  if (someFunction(s, i).Any(r => !r.Passed)) return null;

  // Rest of code...

  return ret;
}

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);

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;
}

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。