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.

有时出于性能考虑，这是必要的(我不想获取不同的缓存线，就像继续一样;有时)。

如果你不使用RAII分配资源(内存、文件描述符、锁等)，那么多次返回很容易出错，而且肯定是重复的，因为释放需要手动执行多次，你必须仔细跟踪。

在这个例子中:

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;
}

我会把它写成:

function() {
    HRESULT error = OPERATION1FAILED;//assume failure
    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1())) {

        error = OPERATION2FAILED;//assume failure
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3())) {

            error = OPERATION3FAILED;//assume failure
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3())) {

                error = OPERATION4FAILED; //assume failure
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4())) {

                    error = S_OK;
                }
            }
        }
    }
    return error;
}

这当然看起来更好。

这在手动资源释放的情况下尤其有用，因为在哪里和哪些释放是必要的是相当直接的。如下例所示:

function() {
    HRESULT error = OPERATION1FAILED;//assume failure
    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1())) {

        //allocate resource for op2;
        char* const p2 = new char[1024];
        error = OPERATION2FAILED;//assume failure
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2(p2))) {

            //allocate resource for op3;
            char* const p3 = new char[1024];
            error = OPERATION3FAILED;//assume failure
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3(p3))) {

                error = OPERATION4FAILED; //assume failure
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4(p2,p3))) {

                    error = S_OK;
                }
            }
            //free resource for op3;
            delete [] p3;
        }
        //free resource for op2;
        delete [] p2;
    }
    return error;
}

如果在没有RAII(忘记异常问题!)的情况下使用多个出口编写这段代码，则必须多次写入删除。如果你用}else{then 这有点难看。

但是RAII使得多个出口资源问题变得毫无意义。

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;
}

使用单个出口点确实在调试中提供了优势，因为它允许您在函数的末尾设置单个断点，以查看实际将返回的值。

函数中return语句越多，该方法的复杂性就越高。如果您发现自己想知道是否有太多的return语句，那么您可能需要问问自己，该函数中是否有太多的代码行。

但是，不是，一个/多个返回语句并没有错。在某些语言中，这是一种比其他语言(C)更好的实践(c++)。