已经有很多不错的答案了，但大多数答案似乎都牺牲了一些(诚然，很少)灵活性。一种不需要这种权衡的常见方法是添加状态/持续变量。当然，价格是需要跟踪的额外价值:

bool ok = true;
bool conditionA = executeStepA();
// ... possibly edit conditionA, or just ok &= executeStepA();
ok &= conditionA;

if (ok) {
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    // ... possibly do more stuff
    ok &= conditionB;
}
if (ok) {
    bool conditionC = executeStepC();
    ok &= conditionC;
}
if (ok && additionalCondition) {
    // ...
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();
// can now also:
return ok;

为什么没有人给出最简单的解决方案?: D

如果你所有的函数都有相同的签名，那么你可以这样做(对于C语言):

bool (*step[])() = {
    &executeStepA,
    &executeStepB,
    &executeStepC,
    ... 
};

for (int i = 0; i < numberOfSteps; i++) {
    bool condition = step[i]();

    if (!condition) {
        break;
    }
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

对于简洁的c++解决方案，您应该创建一个接口类，其中包含一个执行方法，并将步骤包装在对象中。 然后，上面的解看起来像这样:

Step *steps[] = {
    stepA,
    stepB,
    stepC,
    ... 
};

for (int i = 0; i < numberOfSteps; i++) {
    Step *step = steps[i];

    if (!step->execute()) {
        break;
    }
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

在c++中，实际上有一种方法可以延迟操作:使用对象的析构函数。

假设你可以访问c++ 11:

class Defer {
public:
    Defer(std::function<void()> f): f_(std::move(f)) {}
    ~Defer() { if (f_) { f_(); } }

    void cancel() { f_ = std::function<void()>(); }

private:
    Defer(Defer const&) = delete;
    Defer& operator=(Defer const&) = delete;

    std::function<void()> f_;
}; // class Defer

然后使用这个工具:

int foo() {
    Defer const defer{&executeThisFunctionInAnyCase}; // or a lambda

    // ...

    if (!executeA()) { return 1; }

    // ...

    if (!executeB()) { return 2; }

    // ...

    if (!executeC()) { return 3; }

    // ...

    return 4;
} // foo

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();

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》。

假设你不需要单独的条件变量，反转测试并使用else-falthrough作为“ok”路径，将允许你获得更垂直的if/else语句集:

bool failed = false;

// keep going if we don't fail
if (failed = !executeStepA())      {}
else if (failed = !executeStepB()) {}
else if (failed = !executeStepC()) {}
else if (failed = !executeStepD()) {}

runThisFunctionInAnyCase();

省略失败的变量使代码在我看来有点太晦涩了。

在里面声明变量就可以了，不用担心= vs ==。

// keep going if we don't fail
if (bool failA = !executeStepA())      {}
else if (bool failB = !executeStepB()) {}
else if (bool failC = !executeStepC()) {}
else if (bool failD = !executeStepD()) {}
else {
     // success !
}

runThisFunctionInAnyCase();

这很模糊，但很紧凑:

// keep going if we don't fail
if (!executeStepA())      {}
else if (!executeStepB()) {}
else if (!executeStepC()) {}
else if (!executeStepD()) {}
else { /* success */ }

runThisFunctionInAnyCase();