Yes, using return statements in constructors is perfectly standard.
Constructors are functions that do not return a value. The family of functions that do not return a value consists of: void functions, constructors and destructors. It is stated in 6.6.3/2 in the C++ standard. The very same 6.6.3/2 states that it is illegal to use return with an argument in a function that does not return a value.
6.6.3 The return statement
2 A return statement without an
expression can be used only in
functions that do not return a value,
that is, a function with the return
type void, a constructor (12.1), or a
destructor (12.4). A return statement
with an expression of non-void type
can be used only in functions
returning a value; the value of the
expression is returned to the caller
of the function.
Additionally, 12.1/12 states that
12.1 Constructors
12 No return type (not even void) shall
be specified for a constructor. A
return statement in the body of a
constructor shall not specify a return
value.
Note, BTW, that in C++ it is legal to use return with an argument in a void function, as long as the argument of return has type void
void foo() {
return (void) 0; // Legal in C++ (but not in C)
}
This is not allowed in constructors though, since constructors are not void functions.
There’s also one relatively obscure restriction relevant to the usage of return with constructors: it is illegal to use return in function-try-block of a constructor (with other functions it is OK)
15.3 Handling an exception
15 If a return statement appears in a
handler of the function-try-block of a
constructor, the program is ill formed.