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?
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
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……
其他回答
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;
}
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.
我倾向于认为函数中间的return语句是不好的。您可以使用返回在函数的顶部构建一些保护子句,当然也可以告诉编译器在函数的末尾返回什么,但函数中间的返回很容易被忽略,并且会使函数更难解释。
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。
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。