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》。

在某些特殊情况下，虚拟继承树和虚拟方法调用可以处理决策树逻辑。

objectp -> DoTheRightStep();

我遇到过这种情况，它就像魔杖一样有效。 当然，如果你的ConditionX可以始终如一地翻译成“object Is A”条件，这是有意义的。

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...

为什么使用OOP?在伪代码:

abstract class Abstraction():
   function executeStepA(){...};
   function executeStepB(){...};   
   function executeStepC(){...};
   function executeThisFunctionInAnyCase(){....}
   abstract function execute():

class A(Abstraction){
   function execute(){
      executeStepA();
      executeStepB();
      executeStepC();
   }
}
 class B(Abstraction){
   function execute(){
      executeStepA();
      executeStepB();
   }
}
class C(Abstraction){
     function execute(){
       executeStepA();
     }
}

这样你的如果就消失了

item.execute();
item.executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

通常，使用OOP可以避免if。

把有条件的东西移到else中怎么样?

if (!(conditionA = executeStepA()){}
else if (!(conditionB = executeStepB()){}
else if (!(conditionC = executeStepC()){}
else if (!(conditionD = executeStepD()){}

这确实解决了缩进问题。

while(executeStepA() && executeStepB() && executeStepC() && 0);
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase()必须在任何情况下执行，即使其他函数没有完成。

while语句:

while(executeStepA() && executeStepB() && executeStepC() && 0)

将执行所有的函数，不会循环，因为这是一个明确的错误语句。 也可以在退出前重试一定次数。