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:)

Don't. Sometimes you need the complexity. The trick is how you do it. Having the "what you do when the condition exists" may take up some room, making the if statement tree appear larger than it really is. So instead of doing things if a condition is set, just set a variable to a specific value for that case( enumeration or number, like 10,014. After the if tree, then have a case statement, and for that specific value, do whatever you would have done in the if tree. It will lighten up the tree. if x1 if x2 if x3 Var1:=100016; endif endif end if case var=100016 do case 100016 things...

一个简单的解决方案是使用一个条件布尔变量，同一个变量可以重复使用，以检查顺序执行的所有步骤的结果:

    bool cond = executeStepA();
    if(cond) cond = executeStepB();
    if(cond) cond = executeStepC();
    if(cond) cond = executeStepD();

    executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

并不是说在此之前没有必要这样做:bool cond = true;．.． 然后后跟if(cond) cond = executeStepA();cond变量可以立即赋值给executeStepA()的结果，因此使代码更短，更易于阅读。

另一个更奇特但有趣的方法是这样的(有些人可能认为这是IOCCC的一个很好的候选，但仍然如此):

    !executeStepA() ? 0 :
      !executeStepB() ? 0 :
      !executeStepC() ? 0 :
      !executeStepD() ? 0 : 1 ;

    executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

结果是完全相同的，如果我们做什么OP张贴，即:

    if(executeStepA()){
        if(executeStepB()){
            if(executeStepC()){
                if(executeStepD()){
                }
            }
        }
    }

    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;
    }
}

另一种方法是do - while循环，尽管之前提到过，但没有例子可以显示它的样子:

do
{
    if (!executeStepA()) break;
    if (!executeStepB()) break;
    if (!executeStepC()) break;
    ...

    break; // skip the do-while condition :)
}
while (0);

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

(好吧，while循环已经有了一个答案，但do - while循环不会冗余检查true(在开始时)，而是在结束时检查xD(尽管可以跳过))。

另一种解决方案是通过宏hack定义习语。

 #define block for(int block = 0; !block; block++)

现在，“block”可以用break退出，与for(;;)和while()循环的方式相同。例子:

int main(void) {

    block {
       if (conditionA) {
          // Do stuff A...
          break; 
       }
       if (conditionB) {
          // Do stuff B...
          break; 
       }
       if (conditionC) {
          // Do stuff C...
          break; 
       }
       else {
         // Do default stuff...
       }
    } /* End of "block" statement */
    /* --->   The "break" sentences jump here */

    return 0;
} 

尽管使用了“for(;;)”结构，但“block”语句只执行了一次。 这些“块”可以用断句退出。 因此，if else if else if…避免使用句子。 最多，最后一个else可以挂在“块”的末尾，以处理“默认”情况。

该技术旨在避免典型的和丑陋的做{…} while(0)方法。 在宏块中，它定义了一个同样名为block的变量，该变量以这样一种方式定义，即恰好执行了一次for迭代。根据宏的替换规则，宏块定义中的标识符块不会被递归替换，因此block成为程序员无法访问的标识符，但在内部可以很好地控制for(;;)循环的“隐藏”。

此外:这些“块”可以嵌套，因为隐藏变量int块将有不同的作用域。