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;

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 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;
}

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.

你知道有句谚语——情人眼里出西施。

有些人信得过NetBeans，有些人信得过IntelliJ IDEA，有些人信得过Python，有些人信得过PHP。

在一些商店，如果你坚持这样做，你可能会丢掉工作:

public void hello()
{
   if (....)
   {
      ....
   }
}

这个问题完全是关于可见性和可维护性。

I am addicted to using boolean algebra to reduce and simplify logic and use of state machines. However, there were past colleagues who believed my employ of "mathematical techniques" in coding is unsuitable, because it would not be visible and maintainable. And that would be a bad practice. Sorry people, the techniques I employ is very visible and maintainable to me - because when I return to the code six months later, I would understand the code clearly rather seeing a mess of proverbial spaghetti.

嘿，伙计(就像一个前客户曾经说过的)，做你想做的，只要你知道如何在我需要你解决它的时候解决它。

I remember 20 years ago, a colleague of mine was fired for employing what today would be called agile development strategy. He had a meticulous incremental plan. But his manager was yelling at him "You can't incrementally release features to users! You must stick with the waterfall." His response to the manager was that incremental development would be more precise to customer's needs. He believed in developing for the customers needs, but the manager believed in coding to "customer's requirement".

我们经常因为打破数据规范化、MVP和MVC边界而感到内疚。我们内联而不是构造函数。我们走捷径。

就我个人而言，我认为PHP是一种糟糕的实践，但我又知道什么呢?所有的理论争论都归结为试图满足一套规则

质量=精度，可维护性 和盈利能力。

所有其他规则都退居幕后。当然，这条规则永远不会消失:

懒惰是一种美德 程序员。