我能想到的一个很好的理由是代码维护:您有一个单一的退出点。如果你想改变结果的格式，…，它的实现要简单得多。此外，为了调试，你可以在那里插入一个断点:)

话虽如此，我曾经不得不在一个库中工作，那里的编码标准强制要求“每个函数一个返回语句”，我发现这相当困难。我写了很多数值计算代码，经常有“特殊情况”，所以代码最终很难跟上……

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.

拥有多个出口点本质上与使用GOTO是一样的。这是不是件坏事取决于你对迅猛龙的看法。

如果可以只写下一个观点，那就是我的观点:

我完全不同意“单返回语句理论”，认为它在代码可读性、逻辑和描述方面都是推测性的，甚至是破坏性的。

使用一次-一次返回的习惯对于纯过程式编程来说都很糟糕，更不用说更高级的抽象(函数式、组合式等)了。此外，我希望所有以这种风格编写的代码都经过一些特殊的重写解析器，使其具有多个返回语句!

一个函数(如果它真的是一个函数/查询，根据“查询-命令分离”注意-见埃菲尔编程语言。例如)必须定义与控制流场景一样多的返回点。它在数学上更加清晰和一致;它是编写函数(即查询)的方法。

但对于你的特工收到的突变信息——程序调用，我不会那么激进。

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.

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);