Related
I read somewhere that the switch statement uses "Binary Search" or some sorting techniques to exactly choose the correct case and this increases its performance compared to else-if ladder.
And also if we give the case in order does the switch work faster? is it so? Can you add your valuable suggestions on this?
We discussed here about the same and planned to post as a question.
It's actually up to the compiler how a switch statement is realized in code.
However, my understanding is that when it's suitable (that is, relatively dense cases), a jump table is used.
That would mean that something like:
switch(i) {
case 0: doZero(); break;
case 1: doOne();
case 2: doTwo(); break;
default: doDefault();
}
Would end up getting compiled to something like (horrible pseudo-assembler, but it should be clear, I hope).
load i into REG
compare REG to 2
if greater, jmp to DEFAULT
compare REG to 0
if less jmp to DEFAULT
jmp to table[REG]
data table
ZERO
ONE
TWO
end data
ZERO: call doZero
jmp END
ONE: call doOne
TWO: call doTwo
jmp END
DEFAULT: call doDefault
END:
If that's not the case, there are other possible implementations that allow for some extent of "better than a a sequence of conditionals".
How swtich is implemented depends on what values you have. For values that are close in range, the compiler will generally generate a jump table. If the values are far apart, it will generate a linked branch, using something like a binary search to find the right value.
The order of the switch statements as such doesn't matter, it will do the same thing whether you have the order in ascending, descending or random order - do what makes most sense with regard to what you want to do.
If nothing else, switch is usually a lot easier to read than an if-else sequence.
On some googling I found some interestin link and planned to post as an answer to my question.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/100473/Something-You-May-Not-Know-About-the-Switch-Statem
Comments are welcome..
Although it can be implemented as several ways it depends on how the language designer wants to implement it.
One possible efficient way is to use Hash Maps
Map every condition (usually integer) to the corresponding expression to be evaluated followed by a jump statement.
Other solutions also might work as often switch has finite conditions but a efficient solution shall be to use Hash map
I'm in the process of refactoring a very large amount of code, mostly C++, to remove a number of temporary configuration checks which have become permanantly set to given values. So for example, I would have the following code:
#include <value1.h>
#include <value2.h>
#include <value3.h>
...
if ( value1() )
{
// do something
}
bool b = value2();
if ( b && anotherCondition )
{
// do more stuff
}
if ( value3() < 10 )
{
// more stuff again
}
where the calls to value return either a bool or an int. Since I know the values that these calls always return, I've done some regex substitution to expand the calls to their normal values:
// where:
// value1() == true
// value2() == false
// value3() == 4
// TODO: Remove expanded config (value1)
if ( true )
{
// do something
}
// TODO: Remove expanded config (value2)
bool b = false;
if ( b && anotherCondition )
{
// do more stuff
}
// TODO: Remove expanded config (value3)
if ( 4 < 10 )
{
// more stuff again
}
Note that although the values are fixed, they are not set at compile time but are read from shared memory so the compiler is not currently optimising anything away behind the scenes.
Although the resultant code looks a bit goofy, this regex approach achieves a lot of what I want since it's simple to apply and removes dependence on the calls, while not changing the behaviour of the code and it's also likely that the compiler may then optimise a lot of it out knowing that a block can never be called or a check will always return true. It also makes it reasonably easy (especially when diffing against version control) to see what has changed and take the final step of cleaning it up so the code above code eventually looks as follows:
// do something
// DONT do more stuff (b being false always prevented this)
// more stuff again
The trouble is that I have hundreds (possibly thousands) of changes to make to get from the second, correct but goofy, stage to get to the final cleaned code.
I wondered if anyone knew of a refactoring tool which might handle this or of any techniques I could apply. The main problem is that the C++ syntax makes full expansion or elimination quite difficult to achieve and there are many permutations to the code above. I feel I almost need a compiler to deal with the variation of syntax that I would need to cover.
I know there have been similar questions but I can't find any requirement quite like this and also wondered if any tools or procedures had emerged since they were asked?
It sounds like you have what I call "zombie code"... dead in practice, but still live as far as the compiler is concerned. This is a pretty common issue with most systems of organized runtime configuration variables: eventually some configuration variables arrive at a permanent fixed state, yet are reevaluated at runtime repeatedly.
The cure isn't regex, as you have noted, because regex doesn't parse C++ code reliably.
What you need is a program transformation system. This is a tool that really parses source code, and can apply a set of code-to-code rewriting rules to the parse tree, and can regenerate source text from the changed tree.
I understand that Clang has some capability here; it can parse C++ and build a tree, but it does not have source-to-source transformation capability. You can simulate that capability by writing AST-to-AST transformations but that's a lot more inconvenient IMHO. I believe it can regenerate C++ code but I don't know if it will preserve comments or preprocessor directives.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its C++(11) front end can (and has been used to) carry out massive transformations on C++ source code, and has source-to-source transformations. AFAIK, it is the only production tool that can do this. What you need is a set of transformations that represent your knowledge of the final state of the configuration variables of interest, and some straightforward code simplification rules. The following DMS rules are close to what you likely want:
rule fix_value1():expression->expression
"value1()" -> "true";
rule fix_value2():expression->expression
"value2()" -> "false";
rule fix_value3():expression->expression
"value3()" -> "4";
rule simplify_boolean_and_true(r:relation):condition->condition
"r && true" -> "r".
rule simplify_boolean_or_ture(r:relation):condition->condition
"r || true" -> "true".
rule simplify_boolean_and_false(r:relation):condition->condition
"r && false" -> "false".
...
rule simplify_boolean_not_true(r:relation):condition->condition
"!true" -> "false".
...
rule simplify_if_then_false(s:statement): statement->statement
" if (false) \s" -> ";";
rule simplify_if_then_true(s:statement): statement->statement
" if (true) \s" -> "\s";
rule simplify_if_then_else_false(s1:statement, s2:statement): statement->statement
" if (false) \s1 else \s2" -> "\s2";
rule simplify_if_then_else_true(s1:statement, s2: statement): statement->statement
" if (true) \s1 else \s2" -> "\s2";
You also need rules to simplify ("fold") constant expressions involving arithmetic, and rules to handle switch on expressions that are now constant. To see what DMS rules look like for integer constant folding see Algebra as a DMS domain.
Unlike regexes, DMS rewrite rules cannot "mismatch" code; they represent the corresponding ASTs and it is that ASTs that are matched. Because it is AST matching, they have no problems with whitespace, line breaks or comments. You might think they could have trouble with order of operands ('what if "false && x" is encountered?'); they do not, as the grammar rules for && and || are marked in the DMS C++ parser as associative and commutative and the matching process automatically takes that into account.
What these rules cannot do by themselves is value (in your case, constant) propagation across assignments. For this you need flow analysis so that you can trace such assignments ("reaching definitions"). Obviously, if you don't have such assignments or very few, you can hand patch those. If you do, you'll need the flow analysis; alas, DMS's C++ front isn't quite there but we are working on it; we have control flow analysis in place. (DMS's C front end has full flow analysis).
(EDIT February 2015: Now does full C++14; flow analysis within functions/methods).
We actually applied this technique to 1.5M SLOC application of mixed C and C++ code from IBM Tivoli almost a decade ago with excellent success; we didn't need the flow analysis :-}
You say:
Note that although the values are reasonably fixed, they are not set at compile time but are read from shared memory so the compiler is not currently optimising anything away behind the scenes.
Constant-folding the values by hand doesn't make a lot of sense unless they are completely fixed. If your compiler provides constexpr you could use that, or you could substitute in preprocessor macros like this:
#define value1() true
#define value2() false
#define value3() 4
The optimizer would take care of you from there. Without seeing examples of exactly what's in your <valueX.h> headers or knowing how your process of getting these values from shared memory is working, I'll just throw out that it could be useful to rename the existing valueX() functions and do a runtime check in case they change again in the future:
// call this at startup to make sure our agreed on values haven't changed
void check_values() {
assert(value1() == get_value1_from_shared_memory());
assert(value2() == get_value2_from_shared_memory());
assert(value3() == get_value3_from_shared_memory());
}
The C++ comma operator is used to chain individual expressions, yielding the value of the last executed expression as the result.
For example the skeleton code (6 statements, 6 expressions):
step1;
step2;
if (condition)
step3;
return step4;
else
return step5;
May be rewritten to: (1 statement, 6 expressions)
return step1,
step2,
condition?
step3, step4 :
step5;
I noticed that it is not possible to perform step-by-step debugging of such code, as the expression chain seems to be executed as a whole. Does it means that the compiler is able to perform special optimizations which are not possible with the traditional statement approach (specially if the steps are const or inline)?
Note: I'm not talking about the coding style merit of that way of expressing sequence of expressions! Just about the possible optimisations allowed by replacing statements by expressions.
Most compilers will break your code down into "basic blocks", which are stretches of code with no jumps/branches in or out. Optimisations will be performed on a graph of these blocks: that graph captures all the control flow in the function. The basic blocks are equivalent in your two versions of the code, so I doubt that you'd get different optimisations. That the basic blocks are the same isn't entirely obvious: it relies on the fact that the control flow between the steps is the same in both cases, and so are the sequence points. The most plausible difference is that you might find in the second case there is only one block including a "return", and in the first case there are two. The blocks are still equivalent, since the optimiser can replace two blocks that "do the same thing" with one block that is jumped to from two different places. That's a very common optimisation.
It's possible, of course, that a particular compiler doesn't ignore or eliminate the differences between your two functions when optimising. But there's really no way of saying whether any differences would make the result faster or slower, without examining what that compiler is doing. In short there's no difference between the possible optimisations, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no difference between the actual optimisations.
The reason you can't single-step your second version of the code is just down to how the debugger works, not the compiler. Single-step usually means, "run to the next statement", so if you break your code into multiple statements, you can more easily debug each one. Otherwise, if your debugger has an assembly view, then in the second case you could switch to that and single-step the assembly, allowing you to see how it progresses. Or if any of your steps involve function calls, then you may be able to "do the hokey-cokey", by repeatedly doing "step in, step out" of the functions, and separate them that way.
Using the comma operator neither promotes nor hinders optimization in any circumstances I'm aware of, because the C++ standard guarantee is only that evaluation will be in left-to-right order, not that statement execution necessarily will be. (This is the same guarantee you get with statement line order.)
What it is likely to do, though, is turn your code into a confusing mess, since many programmers are unaware that the comma-as-operator even exists, and are apt to confuse it with commas used as parameter separators. (Want to really make your code unreadable? Call a function like my_func((++i, y), x).)
The "best" use of the comma operator I've seen is to work with multiple variables in the iteration statement of a for loop:
for (int i = 0, j = 0;
i < 10 && j < 12;
i += j, ++j) // each time through the loop we're tinkering with BOTH i and j
{
}
Very unlikely IMHO. The thing get's compiled down to assembler/machine code, then further low-level optimizations are done, so it probably turns out to the same thing.
OTOH, if the comma operator is overloaded, the game changes completely. But I'm sure you know that. ;)
The obligatory list:
Don't worry about rewriting almost equivalent code to gain performance
If you have a perf-problem, profile to see what the problem is
If you can't get it faster by algorithmic ops, look at the disassembly and see that the compiler does what you intended
If not, ask here and post source and disassembly for both versions. :)
This question in mainly pointed at C/C++, but I guess other languages are relevant as well.
I can't understand why is switch/case still being used instead of if/else if. It seems to me much like using goto's, and results in the same sort of messy code, while the same results could be acheived with if/else if's in a much more organized manner.
Still, I see these blocks around quite often. A common place to find them is near a message-loop (WndProc...), whereas these are among the places when they raise the heaviest havoc: variables are shared along the entire block, even when not propriate (and can't be initialized inside it). Extra attention has to be put on not dropping break's, and so on...
Personally, I avoid using them, and I wonder wether I'm missing something?
Are they more efficient than if/else's?
Are they carried on by tradition?
Summarising my initial post and comments - there are several advantages of switch statement over if/else statement:
Cleaner code. Code with multiple chained if/else if ... looks messy and is difficult to maintain - switch gives cleaner structure.
Performance. For dense case values compiler generates jump table, for sparse - binary search or series of if/else, so in worst case switch is as fast as if/else, but typically faster. Although some compilers can similarly optimise if/else.
Test order doesn't matter. To speed up series of if/else tests one needs to put more likely cases first. With switch/case programmer doesn't need to think about this.
Default can be anywhere. With if/else default case must be at the very end - after last else. In switch - default can be anywhere, wherever programmer finds it more appropriate.
Common code. If you need to execute common code for several cases, you may omit break and the execution will "fall through" - something you cannot achieve with if/else. (There is a good practice to place a special comment /* FALLTHROUGH */ for such cases - lint recognises it and doesn't complain, without this comment it does complain as it is common error to forgot break).
Thanks to all commenters.
Well, one reason is clarity....
if you have a switch/case, then the expression can't change....
i.e.
switch (foo[bar][baz]) {
case 'a':
...
break;
case 'b':
...
break;
}
whereas with if/else, if you write by mistake (or intent):
if (foo[bar][baz] == 'a') {
....
}
else if (foo[bar][baz+1] == 'b') {
....
}
people reading your code will wonder "were the foo expressions supposed to be the same", or "why are they different"?
please remember that case/select provides additional flexibility:
condition is evaluated once
is flexible enough to build things like the Duff's device
fallthrough (aka case without break)
as well as it executes much faster (via jump/lookup table) * historically
Also remember that switch statements allows the flow of control to continue, which allows you to nicely combine conditions while allowing you to add additional code for certain conditions, such as in the following piece of code:
switch (dayOfWeek)
{
case MONDAY:
garfieldUnhappy = true;
case TUESDAY:
case WEDNESDAY:
case THURSDAY:
case FRIDAY:
weekDay = true;
break;
case SATURDAY:
weekendJustStarted = true;
case SUNDAY:
weekendDay = true;
break;
}
Using if/else statements here instead would not be anywhere as nice.
if (dayOfWeek == MONDAY)
{
garfieldUnhappy = true;
}
if (dayOfWeek == SATURDAY)
{
weekendJustStarted = true;
}
if (dayOfWeek == MONDAY || dayOfWeek == TUESDAY || dayOfWeek == WEDNESDAY
|| dayOfWeek == THURSDAY || dayOfWeek == FRIDAY)
{
weekDay = true;
}
else if (dayOfWeek == SATURDAY || dayOfWeek == SUNDAY)
{
weekendDay = true;
}
If there are lots of cases, the switch statement seems cleaner.
It's also nice when you have multiple values for which you want the same behavior - just using multiple "case" statements that fall through to a single implementation is much easier to read than a if( this || that || someotherthing || ... )
It might also depend on your language -- For example, some languages switch only works with numeric types, so it saves you some typing when you're working with an enumerated value, numeric constants... etc...
If (day == DAYOFWEEK_MONDAY) {
//...
}
else if (day == DAYOFWEEK_TUESDAY) {
//...
}
//etc...
Or slightly easier to read...
switch (day) {
case DAYOFWEEK_MONDAY :
//...
case DAYOFWEEK_TUESDAY :
//...
//etc...
}
Switch/case is usually optimized more efficiently than if/else if/else, but is occasionally (depending on language and compiler) translated to simple if/else if/else statements.
I personally think switch statements makes code more readable than a bunch of if statements; provided that you follow a few simple rules. Rules you should probably follow even for your if/else if/else situations, but that's again my opinion.
Those rules:
Never, ever, have more than one line on your switch block. Call a method or function and do your work there.
Always check for break/ case fallthrough.
Bubble up exceptions.
Clarity. As I said here, a clue that else if is problematic is
the frequency with which ELSE IF is
used in a far more constrained way
than is allowed by the syntax. It is a
sledgehammer of flexibility,
permitting entirely unrelated
conditions to be tested. But it is
routinely used to swat the flies of
CASE, comparing the same expression
with alternate values...
This reduces the readability of the
code. Since the structure permits a
universe of conditional complexity,
the reader needs to keep more
possibilities in mind when parsing
ELSE IF than when parsing CASE.
Actually a switch statement implies that you are working off of something that is more or less an enum which gives you an instant clue what's going on.
That said, a switch on an enum in any OO language could probably be coded better--and a series of if/else's on the same "enum" style value would be at least as bad and even worse at conveying meaning.
addressing the concern that everything inside the switch has equivalent scope, you can always throw your case logic into another { } block, like so ..
switch( thing ) {
case ONETHING: {
int x; // local to the case!
...
}
break;
case ANOTHERTHING: {
int x; // a different x than the other one
}
break;
}
.. now I'm not saying that's pretty. Just putting it out there as something that's possible if you absolutely have to isolate something in one case from another.
one other thought on the scope issue - it seems like a good practice to only put one switch inside a function, and not a lot else. Under those circumstances, variable scope isn't as much of a concern, since that way you're generally only dealing with one case of execution on any given invocation of the function.
ok, one last thought on switches: if a function contains more than a couple of switches, it's probably time to refactor your code. If a function contains nested switches, it's probably a clue to rethink your design a bit =)
switch case is mainly used to have the choice to made in the programming .This is not related the conditional statement as :
if your program only require the choice to make then why you use the if/else block and increase the programming effort plus it reduce the execution speed of the program .
Switch statements can be optimized for speed, but can take up more memory if the case values are spread out over large numbers of values.
if/else are generally slow, as each value needs to be checked.
A Smalltalker might reject both switch and if-then-else's and might write something like:-
shortToLongDaysMap := Dictionary new.
shortToLongDaysMap
at: 'Mon' put: 'Monday';
at: 'Tue' put: 'Tuesday';
at: 'Wed' put: 'Wednesday'
etc etc.
longForm := shortToLongDaysMap at: shortForm ifAbsent: [shortForm]
This is a trivial example but I hope you can see how this technique scales for large numbers of cases.
Note the second argument to at:IfAbsent: is similar to the default clause of a case statement.
The main reason behind this is Maintainability and readability. Its easy to make code more readable and maintainable with Switch/case statement then if/else. Because you have many if/else then code become so much messy like nest and its very hard to maintain it.
And some how execution time is another reason.
Pretty sure they compile to the same things as if/else if, but I find the switch/case easier to read when there are more than 2 or 3 elses.
Myself and a colleague have a dispute about which of the following is more elegant. I won't say who's who, so it is impartial. Which is more elegant?
public function set hitZone(target:DisplayObject):void
{
if(_hitZone != target)
{
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, onBtOver);
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OUT, onBtOut);
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, onBtDown);
_hitZone = target;
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, onBtOver, false, 0, true);
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OUT, onBtOut, false, 0, true);
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, onBtDown, false, 0, true);
}
}
...or...
public function set hitZone(target:DisplayObject):void
{
if(_hitZone == target)return;
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, onBtOver);
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OUT, onBtOut);
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, onBtDown);
_hitZone = target;
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, onBtOver, false, 0, true);
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OUT, onBtOut, false, 0, true);
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, onBtDown, false, 0, true);
}
In most cases, returning early reduces the complexity and makes the code more readable.
It's also one of the techniques applied in Spartan programming:
Minimal use of Control
Minimizing the use of conditionals by using specialized
constructs such ternarization,
inheritance, and classes such as Class
Defaults, Class Once and Class
Separator
Simplifying conditionals with early return.
Minimizing the use of looping constructs, by using action applicator
classes such as Class Separate and
Class FileSystemVisitor.
Simplifying logic of iteration with early exits (via return,
continue and break statements).
In your example, I would choose option 2, as it makes the code more readable. I use the same technique when checking function parameters.
This is one of those cases where it's ok to break the rules (i.e. best practices). In general you want to have as few return points in a function as possible. The practical reason for this is that it simplifies your reading of the code, since you can just always assume that each and every function will take its arguments, do its logic, and return its result. Putting in extra returns for various cases tends to complicate the logic and increase the amount of time necessary to read and fully grok the code. Once your code reaches the maintenance stage then multiple returns can have a huge impact on the productivity of new programmers as they try to decipher the logic (its especially bad when comments are sparse and the code unclear). The problem grows exponentially with respect to the length of the function.
So then why in this case does everyone prefer option 2? It's because you're are setting up a contract that the function enforces through validating incoming data, or other invariants that might need to be checked. The prettiest syntax for constructing the validation is the check each condition, returning immediately if the condition fails validity. That way you don't have to maintain some kind of isValid boolean through all of your checks.
To sum things up: we're really looking at how to write validation code and not general logic; option 2 is better for validation code.
As long as the early returns are organized as a block at the top of the function/method body, then I think they're much more readable than adding another layer of nesting.
I try to avoid early returns in the middle of the body. Sometimes they're the best way, but most of the time I think they complicate.
Also, as a general rule I try to minimize nesting control structures. Obviously you can take this one too far, so you have to use some discretion. Converting nested if's to a single switch/case is much clearer to me, even if the predicates repeat some sub-expressions (and assuming this isn't a performance critical loop in a language too dumb to do subexpression elimination). Particularly I dislike the combination of nested ifs in long function/method bodies, since if you jump into the middle of the code for some reason you end up scrolling up and down to mentally reconstruct the context of a given line.
In my experience, the issue with using early returns in a project is that if others on the project aren't used to them, they won't look for them. So early returns or not - if there are multiple programmers involved, make sure everyone's at least aware of their presence.
I personally write code to return as soon as it can, as delaying a return often introduces extra complexity eg trying to safely exit a bunch of nested loops and conditions.
So when I look at an unfamiliar function, the very first thing I do is look for all the returns. What really helps there is to set up your syntax colouring to give return a different colour from anything else. (I go for red.) That way, the returns become a useful tool for determining what the function does, rather than hidden stumbling blocks for the unwary.
Ah the guardian.
Imho, yes - the logic of it is clearer because the return is explicit and right next to the condition, and it can be nicely grouped with similar structures. This is even more applicable where "return" is replaced with "throw new Exception".
As said before, early return is more readable, specially if the body of a function is long, you may find that deleting a } by mistake in a 3 page function (wich in itself is not very elegant) and trying to compile it can take several minutes of non-automatable debugging.
It also makes the code more declarative, because that's the way you would describe it to another human, so probably a developer is close enough to one to understand it.
If the complexity of the function increases later, and you have good tests, you can simply wrap each alternative in a new function, and call them in case branches, that way you mantain the declarative style.
In this case (one test, no else clause) I like the test-and-return. It makes it clear that in that case, there's nothing to do, without having to read the rest of the function.
However, this is splitting the finest of hairs. I'm sure you must have bigger issues to worry about :)
option 2 is more readable, but the manageability of the code fails when a else may be required to be added.
So if you are sure, there is no else go for option 2, but if there could be scope for an else condition then i would prefer option 1
Option 1 is better, because you should have a minimal number of return points in procedure.
There are exceptions like
if (a) {
return x;
}
return y;
because of the way a language works, but in general it's better to have as few exit points as it is feasible.
I prefer to avoid an immediate return at the beginning of a function, and whenever possible put the qualifying logic to prevent entry to the method prior to it being called. Of course, this varies depending on the purpose of the method.
However, I do not mind returning in the middle of the method, provided the method is short and readable. In the event that the method is large, in my opinion, it is already not very readable, so it will either be refactored into multiple functions with inline returns, or I will explicitly break from the control structure with a single return at the end.
I am tempted to close it as exact duplicate, as I saw some similar threads already, including Invert “if” statement to reduce nesting which has good answers.
I will let it live for now... ^_^
To make that an answer, I am a believer that early return as guard clause is better than deeply nested ifs.
I have seen both types of codes and I prefer first one as it is looks easily readable and understandable for me but I have read many places that early exist is the better way to go.
There's at least one other alternative. Separate the details of the actual work from the decision about whether to perform the work. Something like the following:
public function setHitZone(target:DisplayObject):void
{
if(_hitZone != target)
setHitZoneUnconditionally(target);
}
public function setHitZoneUnconditionally(target:DisplayObject):void
{
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, onBtOver);
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OUT, onBtOut);
_hitZone.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, onBtDown);
_hitZone = target;
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, onBtOver, false, 0, true);
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.ROLL_OUT, onBtOut, false, 0, true);
_hitZone.addEventListener(MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, onBtDown, false, 0, true);
}
Any of these three (your two plus the third above) are reasonable for cases as small as this. However, it would be A Bad Thing to have a function hundreds of lines long with multiple "bail-out points" sprinkled throughout.
I've had this debate with my own code over the years. I started life favoring one return and slowly have lapsed.
In this case, I prefer option 2 (one return) simply because we're only talking about 7 lines of code wrapped by an if() with no other complexity. It's far more readable and function-like. It flows top to bottom. You know you start at the top and end at the bottom.
That being said, as others have said, if there were more guards at the beginning or more complexity or if the function grows, then I would prefer option 1: return immediately at the beginning for a simple validation.