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》。

以下是我在C-whatever和Java中使用过的一个技巧:

do {
    if (!condition1) break;
    doSomething();
    if (!condition2) break;
    doSomethingElse()
    if (!condition3) break;
    doSomethingAgain();
    if (!condition4) break;
    doYetAnotherThing();
} while(FALSE);  // Or until(TRUE) or whatever your language likes

我更喜欢它而不是嵌套的if，因为它的清晰度，特别是当每个条件都有明确的注释时。

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

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:)

在阅读了所有的答案之后，我想提供一种新的方法，它在适当的情况下可能非常清晰易读:状态模式。

如果你将所有的方法(executeStepX)打包到一个对象类中，它可以有一个属性getState()

class ExecutionChain
{
    public:
        enum State
        {
          Start,
          Step1Done,
          Step2Done,
          Step3Done,
          Step4Done,
          FinalDone,
        };
        State getState() const;

        void executeStep1();
        void executeStep2();
        void executeStep3();
        void executeStep4();
        void executeFinalStep();
    private:
        State _state;
};

这将允许你将你的执行代码平铺成这样:

void execute
{
    ExecutionChain chain;

    chain.executeStep1();

    if ( chain.getState() == Step1Done )
    {
        chain.executeStep2();
    }

    if ( chain.getState() == Step2Done )
    {
        chain.executeStep3();
    }

    if ( chain.getState() == Step3Done )
    {
        chain.executeStep4();
    }

    chain.executeFinalStep();
}

通过这种方式，它易于阅读，易于调试，你有一个清晰的流控制，还可以插入新的更复杂的行为(例如，只有在至少执行Step2时才执行Special Step)……

我的问题与其他方法，如ok = execute();如果(execute())，则代码应该清晰易读，就像正在发生的事情的流程图一样。在流程图中有两个步骤:1。2执行。基于结果的决定

因此，您不应该将重要的重载方法隐藏在if语句或类似语句中，它们应该独立存在!

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;