Single return point (Was: No Subroutines...)

Charles Wilt wrote:

>>But experience with some of the hoops I've coded to jump through in
order to
>>have only one return has made me reconsider.

>>As a maintenance programmer, I'd much rather deal with multiple
RETURNs instead 
>>of nested IFs.

I agree totally. I've even come across code where, in order to 'enforce'
the 'single-entry, single-return' maxim, you get this within a
subprocedure:

if (some condition);
  exsr return;
endif;

if (another);
  exsr return;
endif;

if (yet another condition);
  exsr return;
endif;

... (repeated for lots of other code)..

return begsr;
  return;
endsr;

*pssr begsr;
(error processing)
exsr return;
endsr;

Now I can see that if you want to have some exit-specific code, then
maybe it's a good method (because you can add your code before the
return statmnent within the  return subroutine), but on the downside,
you have multiple if's (not nested in this example, but they probably
are in real life!), the equivalent of lots of RETURN's throughout the
procedure, AND a subroutine, which  some on this forum will consider the
biggest sin of all :-)

But there's a single return point, so THAT's ok.

Rory