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();

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...

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》。

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。

让执行函数在失败时抛出异常，而不是返回false。然后你的调用代码看起来像这样:

try {
    executeStepA();
    executeStepB();
    executeStepC();
}
catch (...)

当然，我假设在您最初的示例中，执行步骤只会在步骤内发生错误的情况下返回false ?

一种有趣的方法是处理异常。

try
{
    executeStepA();//function throws an exception on error
    ......
}
catch(...)
{
    //some error handling
}
finally
{
    executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();
}

如果您编写这样的代码，那么您就在某种程度上走错了方向。我不认为拥有这样的代码是“问题”，而是拥有如此混乱的“架构”。

提示:与您信任的经验丰富的开发人员讨论这些情况;-)