4 ms·

If you have to search for your returns you have either too many or your function is too long ;) I'd even say any return is actually one too many.

• setr 5y ago
  Half the functions I write follow the format If !validation_rule1 { return default/err } If !validation_rule2 { return default/err } Work… If !validation_rule3 { return default/err } Work… return result/success Don’t know how you’d get away with single return except by horrifically nesting conditionals
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Don’t know how you’d get away with single return except by horrifically nesting conditionals That pattern is addressed by chained not nested conditionals, which can then be wrapped in a match, i.e.: if !validation1 { err1 } else if !validation1 { err2 } . . . else { ...work...; success_result } the error checking part can be reduced to an iteration with appropriate definitions of a structure for the data to be validated, etc., like: match validators.find_map(|v| v(data)) { Some(err) => err, None => { ...work...; success_result } } EDIT: I missed the intermediate work steps in your post when I initially wrote the response. That can be done a number of ways, e.g., breaking things up into to chained steps (each of which might use the above pattern) that mix validation and work and return a Result type with either the data for the next step to consume or an error.
  • ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
    That's what something `bind`-like is for, like Rust's `and_then`. (validation_rule1') .and_then(validation_rule2') .and_then(work1) .and_then(validation_rule3') .and_then(work)