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;
}

总是要求单一的返回类型是没有意义的。我认为这更像是一个标志，表明某些东西可能需要简化。有时有多个回报是必要的，但通常你可以通过至少尝试有一个退出点来简化事情。

不，因为我们不再生活在20世纪70年代了。如果你的函数足够长以至于多次返回都是个问题，那么它就太长了。

(除了语言中有异常的任何多行函数都会有多个退出点这一事实。)

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。

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;
}

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?

是的，有:

The single exit point gives an excellent place to assert your post-conditions. Being able to put a debugger breakpoint on the one return at the end of the function is often useful. Fewer returns means less complexity. Linear code is generally simpler to understand. If trying to simplify a function to a single return causes complexity, then that's incentive to refactor to smaller, more general, easier-to-understand functions. If you're in a language without destructors or if you don't use RAII, then a single return reduces the number of places you have to clean up. Some languages require a single exit point (e.g., Pascal and Eiffel).

这个问题通常被提出为多个返回或深度嵌套的if语句之间的错误二分法。几乎总有第三种解决方案，它是线性的(没有深度嵌套)，只有一个出口点。

更新:MISRA的指导方针显然也提倡单次退出。

需要澄清的是，我并不是说拥有多个回报总是错误的。但如果有其他等价的解决方案，有很多很好的理由选择单一回报的方案。