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();

如果你的代码像你的例子一样简单，并且你的语言支持短路计算，你可以尝试这样做:

StepA() && StepB() && StepC() && StepD();
DoAlways();

如果您将参数传递给函数并返回其他结果，因此您的代码不能以以前的方式编写，那么许多其他答案将更适合解决这个问题。

我认为c++ 23的可选的一元操作会做得很好，尽管函数需要做一些改变。

and_then()方法执行break或调用下一个函数操作，链接该方法允许逐个调用函数，直到其中一个返回false。

举个简单粗暴的例子:

#include <iostream>
#include <optional>
#include <cstdlib>

using namespace std;

optional<bool> func1() {
    cout << "func1\n";

    if (rand() % 2)
        return true;
    else
        return nullopt;
}

optional<bool> func2(optional<bool> v) {
    cout << "func2\n";

    if (rand() % 2)
        return true;
    else
        return nullopt;
}

optional<bool> func3(optional<bool> v) {
    cout << "func3\n";

    if (rand() % 2)
        return true;
    else
        return nullopt;
}

void func4() {
    cout << "func4\n";
}

int main() {
    srand(time(NULL));

    func1()
      .and_then(func2)
      .and_then(func3);

    func4();

    return 0;
}

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;
    }
}

在这种情况下，老式的C程序员使用goto。这是goto的一种用法，实际上是Linux样式指南鼓励的，它被称为集中函数exit:

int foo() {
    int result = /*some error code*/;
    if(!executeStepA()) goto cleanup;
    if(!executeStepB()) goto cleanup;
    if(!executeStepC()) goto cleanup;

    result = 0;
cleanup:
    executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();
    return result;
}

有些人使用goto的方法是将body包装成一个循环并将其断开，但实际上这两种方法做的是同一件事。如果你只在executeStepA()成功时才需要一些其他的清理，那么goto方法会更好:

int foo() {
    int result = /*some error code*/;
    if(!executeStepA()) goto cleanupPart;
    if(!executeStepB()) goto cleanup;
    if(!executeStepC()) goto cleanup;

    result = 0;
cleanup:
    innerCleanup();
cleanupPart:
    executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();
    return result;
}

使用循环方法，在这种情况下，您将得到两级循环。

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》。