是否有充分的理由说明在函数中只有一个return语句是一个更好的实践?

或者在逻辑上正确的情况下,可以从函数中返回,这意味着函数中可能有许多返回语句?


当前回答

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;
}

其他回答

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.

使用单一出口点可以降低圈复杂度,因此,从理论上讲,可以降低在修改代码时引入错误的可能性。然而,实践往往表明需要更务实的方法。因此,我倾向于只有一个出口点,但如果可读性更好,允许我的代码有多个出口点。

如果管理得当,多次退出是件好事

第一步是明确退出的原因。我的通常是这样的: 1. 不需要执行函数 2. 发现错误 3.提前完成 4. 正常完成 我想你可以把“1”归为一类。不需要执行函数“into”3。提前完成”(如果你愿意的话,可以说是非常提前完成)。

第二步是让函数外部的人知道退出的原因。伪代码看起来像这样:

function foo (input, output, exit_status)

  exit_status == UNDEFINED
  if (check_the_need_to_execute == false) then
    exit_status = NO_NEED_TO_EXECUTE  // reason #1 
    exit

  useful_work

  if (error_is_found == true) then
    exit_status = ERROR               // reason #2
    exit
  if (need_to_go_further == false) then
    exit_status = EARLY_COMPLETION    // reason #3
    exit

  more_work

  if (error_is_found == true) then
    exit_status = ERROR
  else
    exit_status = NORMAL_COMPLETION   // reason #4

end function

显然,如果将上图中的一大块工作移到一个单独的函数中是有益的,那么您应该这样做。

如果您愿意,您可以使用更具体的退出状态,例如,使用几个错误代码和早期完成代码来精确定位退出的原因(甚至位置)。

即使您强制这个函数只有一个出口,我认为您仍然需要指定出口状态。调用者需要知道是否可以使用输出,这有助于维护。

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;

我经常在一个方法的开头有几个语句来返回“简单”的情况。例如,这个:

public void DoStuff(Foo foo)
{
    if (foo != null)
    {
        ...
    }
}

... (恕我直言)可以像这样变得更具可读性:

public void DoStuff(Foo foo)
{
    if (foo == null) return;

    ...
}

所以,是的,我认为从一个函数/方法中有多个“出口点”是很好的。