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。

你也可以这样做:

bool isOk = true;
std::vector<bool (*)(void)> funcs; //vector of function ptr

funcs.push_back(&executeStepA);
funcs.push_back(&executeStepB);
funcs.push_back(&executeStepC);
//...

//this will stop at the first false return
for (auto it = funcs.begin(); it != funcs.end() && isOk; ++it) 
    isOk = (*it)();
if (isOk)
 //doSomeStuff
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

通过这种方式，您可以获得最小的线性增长大小，每次调用+1行，并且易于维护。

编辑:(谢谢@Unda)我不太喜欢，因为在我看来你失去了能见度:

bool isOk = true;
auto funcs { //using c++11 initializer_list
    &executeStepA,
    &executeStepB,
    &executeStepC
};

for (auto it = funcs.begin(); it != funcs.end() && isOk; ++it) 
    isOk = (*it)();
if (isOk)
 //doSomeStuff
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

对于c++ 11及以上版本，一个很好的方法可能是实现一个类似D的作用域(退出)机制的作用域退出系统。

实现它的一种可能的方法是使用c++ 11 lambdas和一些helper宏:

template<typename F> struct ScopeExit 
{
    ScopeExit(F f) : fn(f) { }
    ~ScopeExit() 
    { 
         fn();
    }

    F fn;
};

template<typename F> ScopeExit<F> MakeScopeExit(F f) { return ScopeExit<F>(f); };

#define STR_APPEND2_HELPER(x, y) x##y
#define STR_APPEND2(x, y) STR_APPEND2_HELPER(x, y)

#define SCOPE_EXIT(code)\
    auto STR_APPEND2(scope_exit_, __LINE__) = MakeScopeExit([&](){ code })

这将允许你提前从函数返回，并确保你定义的任何清理代码总是在作用域退出时执行:

SCOPE_EXIT(
    delete pointerA;
    delete pointerB;
    close(fileC); );

if (!executeStepA())
    return;

if (!executeStepB())
    return;

if (!executeStepC())
    return;

宏实际上只是装饰。MakeScopeExit()可以直接使用。

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。

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:)

如果条件被移动到单独的步骤下，条件可以被简化，这是一个c#伪代码，

其思想是使用编排而不是中央编排。

void Main()
{
    Request request = new Request();
    Response response = null;

    // enlist all the processors
    var processors = new List<IProcessor>() {new StepA() };

    var factory = new ProcessorFactory(processors);

    // execute as a choreography rather as a central orchestration.
    var processor = factory.Get(request, response);
    while (processor != null)
    {
        processor.Handle(request, out response);
        processor = factory.Get(request, response); 
    }

    // final result...
    //response
}

public class Request
{
}

public class Response
{
}

public interface IProcessor
{
    bool CanProcess(Request request, Response response);
    bool Handle(Request request, out Response response);
}

public interface IProcessorFactory
{
    IProcessor Get(Request request, Response response);
}   

public class ProcessorFactory : IProcessorFactory
{
    private readonly IEnumerable<IProcessor> processors;

    public ProcessorFactory(IEnumerable<IProcessor> processors)
    {
        this.processors = processors;
    }

    public IProcessor Get(Request request, Response response)
    {
        // this is an iterator
        var matchingProcessors = processors.Where(x => x.CanProcess(request, response)).ToArray();

        if (!matchingProcessors.Any())
        {
            return null;
        }

        return matchingProcessors[0];
    }
}

// Individual request processors, you will have many of these...
public class StepA: IProcessor
{
    public bool CanProcess(Request request, Response response)
    {
        // Validate wether this can be processed -- if condition here
        return false;
    }

    public bool Handle(Request request, out Response response)
    {
        response = null;
        return false;
    }
}