It wasn't THAT bad, but still annoying to figure out; and I would argue that this is never definitive. At least by basic inspection it's so easy to set an error.
The fact that it set off the static analyzer is very annoying too. Now I have to somehow debug the static analyzer, or just accept the risks. I've had some uncomfortable experiences assuming the analyzer is wrong and ignoring or suppressing it... theoretically, the static analysis will do a much better job than a human, so I can't help but doubt, and feel I missed something.
Just as an aside, some teams try to avoid multiple return paths. I believe there's some studies indicating a higher incidence of bugs... for a solid code quality reason you could theoretically deviate.
I've never heard arguments against multiple return paths from a bug standpoint. It's usually a performance optimisation standpoint.
I don't really see how it could increase bugs over setting a flag. With a function that sets a flag there's always a risk that you change the flag accidentally after you already hit the value you want.
Which is the same risk as returning earlier than you want, I suppose.
I just find the multiple return paths easier to read, debug and understand, rather than stepping through to trace the value of the flag, you just figure out which return is firing.
The more I write, the more I lean into immutability though. Bugs happen when values can change that shouldn't.
The fact that it set off the static analyzer is very annoying too. Now I have to somehow debug the static analyzer, or just accept the risks. I've had some uncomfortable experiences assuming the analyzer is wrong and ignoring or suppressing it... theoretically, the static analysis will do a much better job than a human, so I can't help but doubt, and feel I missed something.
Just as an aside, some teams try to avoid multiple return paths. I believe there's some studies indicating a higher incidence of bugs... for a solid code quality reason you could theoretically deviate.