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;
    }
}

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:)

你可以使用&&(逻辑与):

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

这将满足你的两个要求:

executeStep<X>()应该只在前一个成功时才计算(这称为短路计算) executeThisFunctionInAnyCase()将在任何情况下执行

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。

有几个回答暗示了我看到并使用过很多次的模式，尤其是在网络编程中。在网络堆栈中，经常有很长的请求序列，其中任何一个都可能失败并停止进程。

常见的模式是使用do {} while (false);

我使用宏while(false)使它做{}一次;常见的模式是:

do
{
    bool conditionA = executeStepA();
    if (! conditionA) break;
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    if (! conditionB) break;
    // etc.
} while (false);

这种模式相对容易阅读，并且允许使用能够正确销毁的对象，还避免了多次返回，从而使步进和调试更容易一些。

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 ?