为了改进Mathieu的c++ 11答案并避免通过使用std::function而产生的运行时成本，我建议使用以下方法

template<typename functor>
class deferred final
{
public:
    template<typename functor2>
    explicit deferred(functor2&& f) : f(std::forward<functor2>(f)) {}
    ~deferred() { this->f(); }

private:
    functor f;
};

template<typename functor>
auto defer(functor&& f) -> deferred<typename std::decay<functor>::type>
{
    return deferred<typename std::decay<functor>::type>(std::forward<functor>(f));
}

这个简单的模板类将接受任何不需要任何参数就可以调用的函子，并且这样做不需要任何动态内存分配，因此更好地符合c++的抽象目标，没有不必要的开销。附加的函数模板用于简化模板参数推断的使用(类模板参数不可用)

使用的例子:

auto guard = defer(executeThisFunctionInAnyCase);
bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (!conditionA) return;
bool conditionB = executeStepB();
if (!conditionB) return;
bool conditionC = executeStepC();
if (!conditionC) return;

正如Mathieu的答案，这个解决方案是完全异常安全的，在所有情况下都将调用executeThisFunctionInAnyCase。如果executeThisFunctionInAnyCase本身被抛出，析构函数被隐式地标记为noexcept，因此将发出对std::terminate的调用，而不是在堆栈展开期间引发异常。

让执行函数在失败时抛出异常，而不是返回false。然后你的调用代码看起来像这样:

try {
    executeStepA();
    executeStepB();
    executeStepC();
}
catch (...)

当然，我假设在您最初的示例中，执行步骤只会在步骤内发生错误的情况下返回false ?

这看起来像一个状态机，这很方便，因为您可以使用状态模式轻松实现它。

在Java中，它看起来像这样:

interface StepState{
public StepState performStep();
}

实现如下所示:

class StepA implements StepState{ 
    public StepState performStep()
     {
         performAction();
         if(condition) return new StepB()
         else return null;
     }
}

等等。然后你可以将大if条件替换为:

Step toDo = new StepA();
while(toDo != null)
      toDo = toDo.performStep();
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

为什么使用OOP?在伪代码:

abstract class Abstraction():
   function executeStepA(){...};
   function executeStepB(){...};   
   function executeStepC(){...};
   function executeThisFunctionInAnyCase(){....}
   abstract function execute():

class A(Abstraction){
   function execute(){
      executeStepA();
      executeStepB();
      executeStepC();
   }
}
 class B(Abstraction){
   function execute(){
      executeStepA();
      executeStepB();
   }
}
class C(Abstraction){
     function execute(){
       executeStepA();
     }
}

这样你的如果就消失了

item.execute();
item.executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

通常，使用OOP可以避免if。

正如Rommik提到的，您可以为此应用设计模式，但我将使用Decorator模式而不是Strategy，因为您想要链式调用。如果代码很简单，那么我会选择一个结构良好的答案来防止嵌套。但是，如果它很复杂或者需要动态链接，那么Decorator模式是一个很好的选择。这是一个yUML类图:

下面是一个示例LinqPad c#程序:

void Main()
{
    IOperation step = new StepC();
    step = new StepB(step);
    step = new StepA(step);
    step.Next();
}

public interface IOperation 
{
    bool Next();
}

public class StepA : IOperation
{
    private IOperation _chain;
    public StepA(IOperation chain=null)
    {
        _chain = chain;
    }

    public bool Next() 
    {
        bool localResult = false;
        //do work
        //...
        // set localResult to success of this work
        // just for this example, hard coding to true
        localResult = true;
        Console.WriteLine("Step A success={0}", localResult);

        //then call next in chain and return
        return (localResult && _chain != null) 
            ? _chain.Next() 
            : true;
    }
}

public class StepB : IOperation
{
    private IOperation _chain;
    public StepB(IOperation chain=null)
    {
        _chain = chain;
    }

    public bool Next() 
    {   
        bool localResult = false;

        //do work
        //...
        // set localResult to success of this work
        // just for this example, hard coding to false, 
            // to show breaking out of the chain
        localResult = false;
        Console.WriteLine("Step B success={0}", localResult);

        //then call next in chain and return
        return (localResult && _chain != null) 
            ? _chain.Next() 
            : true;
    }
}

public class StepC : IOperation
{
    private IOperation _chain;
    public StepC(IOperation chain=null)
    {
        _chain = chain;
    }

    public bool Next() 
    {
        bool localResult = false;
        //do work
        //...
        // set localResult to success of this work
        // just for this example, hard coding to true
        localResult = true;
        Console.WriteLine("Step C success={0}", localResult);
        //then call next in chain and return
        return (localResult && _chain != null) 
            ? _chain.Next() 
            : true;
    }
}

恕我直言，关于设计模式最好的书是《Head First design patterns》。

As @Jefffrey said, you can use the conditional short-circuit feature in almost every language, I personally dislike conditional statements with more than 2 condition (more than a single && or ||), just a matter of style. This code does the same (and probably would compile the same) and it looks a bit cleaner to me. You don't need curly braces, breaks, returns, functions, lambdas (only c++11), objects, etc. as long as every function in executeStepX() returns a value that can be cast to true if the next statement is to be executed or false otherwise.

if (executeStepA())
 if (executeStepB())
  if (executeStepC())
   //...
    if (executeStepN()); // <-- note the ';'

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

任何时候，任何函数返回false，都不会调用下一个函数。

我喜欢@Mayerz的答案，因为你可以在运行时改变要调用的函数(以及它们的顺序)。这有点像观察者模式，其中有一组订阅者(函数、对象等)，只要满足给定的任意条件，就会调用和执行这些订阅者。在许多情况下，这可能是一个过度杀戮，所以明智地使用它:)