第一个是类型正确，严格意义上的正确。(如果你想的是，size永远不可能小于零。)不过，这个警告在我看来是一个很好的被忽视的警告。

auto polygonsize = polygon.size(), i=polygonsize;
for (i=0; i < polygonsize; i++) {
    sum += polygon[i];
}

This

uses auto to avoid us worrying about types. It takes any function calls e.g. the size() function call out of the loop to avoid unnecessary repeated function calls. It makes the loop counter available. Purists will want to work with the n'th element with no knowledge of the value of n, and see this as bad. It appears to have an unecessary statement i=polygonsize initializing the loop variable when it's declared, but this should disappear if there is a half decent code optimizer, and is merely to ensure i has the correct type.

我并不是说任何人都应该像我刚才那样编写代码。

我只是提供它作为另一种替代方案，它可以避免担心类型，将函数调用从循环中取出，并使循环计数器可用于更复杂场景中的调试信息等实际工作。

我通常使用BOOST_FOREACH:

#include <boost/foreach.hpp>

BOOST_FOREACH( vector_type::value_type& value, v ) {
    // do something with 'value'
}

它适用于STL容器、数组、c风格字符串等。

关于Johannes Schaub的回答:

for(std::vector<T*>::iterator it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); ++it) { 
...
}

这可能适用于某些编译器，但不适用于gcc。这里的问题是std::vector::iterator是类型、变量(成员)还是函数(方法)。使用gcc会得到以下错误:

In member function ‘void MyClass<T>::myMethod()’:
error: expected `;' before ‘it’
error: ‘it’ was not declared in this scope
In member function ‘void MyClass<T>::sort() [with T = MyClass]’:
instantiated from ‘void MyClass<T>::run() [with T = MyClass]’
instantiated from here
dependent-name ‘std::vector<T*,std::allocator<T*> >::iterator’ is parsed as a non-type, but instantiation yields a type
note: say ‘typename std::vector<T*,std::allocator<T*> >::iterator’ if a type is meant

解决方案是使用关键字'typename'，如下所示:

typename std::vector<T*>::iterator it = v.begin();
for( ; it != v.end(); ++it) {
...

for (vector<int>::iterator it = polygon.begin(); it != polygon.end(); it++)
    sum += *it; 

使用size_t:

for (size_t i=0; i < polygon.size(); i++)

引用维基百科:

stdlib.h和stddef.h头文件定义了一种名为size_t的数据类型，用于表示对象的大小。接受大小的标准库函数期望它们是size_t类型，而sizeof操作符的计算结果为size_t。 size_t的实际类型取决于平台;一个常见的错误是假定size_t与unsigned int相同，这可能导致编程错误，特别是在64位体系结构变得越来越普遍的情况下。