假设我有这样的伪代码:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (conditionA){
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    if (conditionB){
        bool conditionC = executeStepC();
        if (conditionC){
            ...
        }
    }
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

函数executeStepX当且仅当前一个成功时执行。 在任何情况下,executeThisFunctionInAnyCase函数都应该在最后被调用。 我在编程方面是一个新手,所以很抱歉提出一个非常基本的问题:有没有一种方法(例如在C/ c++中)以代码易读性为代价,避免长if链产生那种“金字塔式代码”?

我知道如果我们可以跳过executeThisFunctionInAnyCase函数调用,代码可以简化为:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (!conditionA) return;
bool conditionB = executeStepB();
if (!conditionB) return;
bool conditionC = executeStepC();
if (!conditionC) return;

但是约束是executeThisFunctionInAnyCase函数调用。 break语句可以以某种方式使用吗?


当前回答

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:)

其他回答

在c++中(这个问题在C和c++中都有标记),如果你不能改变函数来使用异常,你仍然可以使用异常机制,如果你写一个像这样的小助手函数

struct function_failed {};
void attempt(bool retval)
{
  if (!retval)
    throw function_failed(); // or a more specific exception class
}

然后你的代码可以如下所示:

try
{
  attempt(executeStepA());
  attempt(executeStepB());
  attempt(executeStepC());
}
catch (function_failed)
{
  // -- this block intentionally left empty --
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

如果你喜欢花哨的语法,你可以通过显式强制转换来让它工作:

struct function_failed {};
struct attempt
{
  attempt(bool retval)
  {
    if (!retval)
      throw function_failed();
  }
};

然后您可以将代码编写为

try
{
  (attempt) executeStepA();
  (attempt) executeStepB();
  (attempt) executeStepC();
}
catch (function_failed)
{
  // -- this block intentionally left empty --
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

break语句可以以某种方式使用吗?

也许不是最好的解决办法,但你可以把你的陈述变成一种方式。While(0)循环并使用break语句而不是return。

只做

if( executeStepA() && executeStepB() && executeStepC() )
{
    // ...
}
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

就是这么简单。


由于三次编辑都从根本上改变了问题(如果算上版本1的修订,则是四次),我包括了我正在回答的代码示例:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (conditionA){
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    if (conditionB){
        bool conditionC = executeStepC();
        if (conditionC){
            ...
        }
    }
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

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();

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;
    }
}