假设你不需要单独的条件变量，反转测试并使用else-falthrough作为“ok”路径，将允许你获得更垂直的if/else语句集:

bool failed = false;

// keep going if we don't fail
if (failed = !executeStepA())      {}
else if (failed = !executeStepB()) {}
else if (failed = !executeStepC()) {}
else if (failed = !executeStepD()) {}

runThisFunctionInAnyCase();

省略失败的变量使代码在我看来有点太晦涩了。

在里面声明变量就可以了，不用担心= vs ==。

// keep going if we don't fail
if (bool failA = !executeStepA())      {}
else if (bool failB = !executeStepB()) {}
else if (bool failC = !executeStepC()) {}
else if (bool failD = !executeStepD()) {}
else {
     // success !
}

runThisFunctionInAnyCase();

这很模糊，但很紧凑:

// keep going if we don't fail
if (!executeStepA())      {}
else if (!executeStepB()) {}
else if (!executeStepC()) {}
else if (!executeStepD()) {}
else { /* success */ }

runThisFunctionInAnyCase();

只做

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

就是这么简单。

由于三次编辑都从根本上改变了问题(如果算上版本1的修订，则是四次)，我包括了我正在回答的代码示例:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (conditionA){
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    if (conditionB){
        bool conditionC = executeStepC();
        if (conditionC){
            ...
        }
    }
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

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。

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:)

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...

假设所需的代码是我目前看到的:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (conditionA){
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    if (conditionB){
        bool conditionC = executeStepC();
        if (conditionC){
            ...
        }
    }
}    
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

我想说，正确的方法，因为它是最容易阅读和最容易维护的，应该有更少的缩进级别，这是(目前)这个问题的目的。

// Pre-declare the variables for the conditions
bool conditionA = false;
bool conditionB = false;
bool conditionC = false;

// Execute each step only if the pre-conditions are met
conditionA = executeStepA();
if (conditionA)
    conditionB = executeStepB();
if (conditionB)
    conditionC = executeStepC();
if (conditionC) {
    ...
}

// Unconditionally execute the 'cleanup' part.
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

这避免了对gotos、异常、dummy while循环或其他困难结构的任何需求，只需继续手头的简单工作。