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;
}

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.

正如Kent Beck在《实现模式》中讨论保护子句时指出的那样，使一个例程具有单一的入口和出口点……

是为了防止可能的混淆 当你在许多地方跳来跳去 同一例程中的位置。这让 当应用到FORTRAN或 汇编语言程序 有大量的全球数据，甚至 理解哪些语句是 执行是一项艰苦的工作……使用小方法和大部分本地数据，它是不必要的保守。”

我发现用保护子句编写的函数要比一长串嵌套的if then else语句容易理解得多。

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;
}

你可以这样做，只实现一个返回语句-在开始时声明它，在结束时输出它-问题解决了:

$content = "";
$return = false;

if($content != "")
{
  $return = true;
}
else 
{
  $return = false;
}

return $return;

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。