我对这位讲师的能力表示怀疑。考虑到他 点:

OK Would anyone really write (or want to read) (b*b) - ((4*a)*c)? Some precedences are obvious (or should be), and the extra parentheses just add to confusion. (On the other hand, you _should_ use the parentheses in less obvious cases, even if you know that they're not needed.) Sort of. There are two wide spread conventions for formatting conditionals and loops: if ( cond ) { code; } and: if ( cond ) { code; } In the first, I'd agree with him. The opening { is not that visible, so it's best to assume it's always there. In the second, however, I (and most of the people I've worked with) have no problem with omitting the braces for a single statement. (Provided, of course, that the indentation is systematic and that you use this style consistently. (And a lot of very good programmers, writing very readable code, omit the braces even when formatting the first way.) NO. Things like if ( NULL == ptr ) are ugly enough to hinder readability. Write the comparisons intuitively. (Which in many cases results in the constant on the right.) His 4 is bad advice; anything which makes the code unnatural makes it less readable. NO. Anything but int is reserved for special cases. To experienced C and C++ programmers, the use of unsigned signals bit operators. C++ doesn't have a real cardinal type (or any other effective subrange type); unsigned doesn't work for numeric values, because of the promotion rules. Numerical values on which no arithmetic operations would make sense, like serial numbers, could presumably be unsigned. I'd argue against it, however, because it sends the wrong message: bitwise operations don't make sense either. The basic rule is that integral types are int, _unless_ there is a significant reason for using another type. NO. Doing this systematically is misleading, and doesn't actually protect against anything. In strict OO code, delete this; is often the most frequent case (and you can't set this to NULL), and otherwise, most delete are in destructors, so you can't access the pointer later anyway. And setting it to NULL doesn't do anything about any other pointers floating around. Setting the pointer systematically to NULL gives a false sense of security, and doesn't really buy you anything.

查看任何典型参考文献中的代码。Stroustrup违反 除了第一条，你给出的每一条规则。

我建议你换个讲师。一个真正知道什么的人 他说的是。

帮助防止在前面的回答中描述的错误的一个选项是内联您希望在不使用大括号时发生的事情。当您尝试修改代码时，很难不注意到错误。

if (condition) doSomething();
else doSomethingElse();

if (condition) doSomething();
    doSomething2(); // Looks pretty obviously wrong
else // doSomethingElse(); also looks pretty obviously wrong

我的2 c:

使用缩进

很明显

永远不要依赖运算符优先级——总是使用括号

我不会使用“从不”和“总是”这样的词，但总的来说，我认为这条规则是有用的。在某些语言(Lisp, Smalltalk)中，这不是问题。

总是使用{}块-即使是单行

我从来没有这样做过，也从来没有遇到过任何问题，但我可以看到它对学生有什么好处，特别是如果他们以前学过Python的话。

Const对象在比较的左边

尤达条件?不,请。它损害了可读性。在编译代码时使用最大警告级别即可。

对于>= 0的变量使用unsigned

好的。有趣的是，我听到斯特劳斯特鲁普不同意。

删除后将指针设置为NULL -双重删除保护

坏的建议!永远不要使用指向已删除或不存在的对象的指针。

我喜欢卢钦公认的答案。事实上，我经过艰苦的学习才知道他是对的，所以我总是使用大括号，即使是单行块。然而，就我个人而言，我在编写过滤器时做了一个例外，就像您在示例中所做的那样。这样的:

int j = 0;
for (int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
{
    if (i % 2 == 0)
    {
        j++;
    }
}

在我看来很混乱。它将'for'循环和'if'语句分离为单独的操作，而实际上你的目的是一个操作:计算所有能被2整除的整数。在更有表现力的语言中，可以这样写:

j = [1..100].filter(_%2 == 0).Count

在缺少闭包的语言中，过滤器不能用单个语句表示，而必须是一个for循环，后面跟着一个if语句。然而，这仍然是程序员心中的一个动作，我相信这应该反映在代码中，如下所示:

int j = 0;
for (int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
  if (i % 2 == 0)
{
    j++;
}

另一个添加花括号的例子。

有一次我在搜索一个bug，发现了这样的代码:

void SomeSimpleEventHandler()
{
    SomeStatementAtTheBeginningNumber1;
    if (conditionX) SomeRegularStatement;
    SomeStatementAtTheBeginningNumber2;
    SomeStatementAtTheBeginningNumber3;
    if (!SomeConditionIsMet()) return;
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement1;
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement2;
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement3;
}

如果你逐行阅读这个方法，你会注意到方法中有一个条件，如果不为真就返回。但实际上，它看起来像其他100个简单的事件处理程序，它们基于某些条件设置一些变量。有一天，Fast Coder进来了，在方法的末尾添加了额外的变量设置语句:

{
    ...
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement3;
    SetAnotherVariableUnconditionally;
}

因此，setanothervariable无条件地在SomeConditionIsMet()时执行，但速度快的家伙没有注意到它，因为所有的行几乎都是相似的大小，即使返回条件垂直缩进，它也不那么明显。

如果条件返回的格式如下:

if (!SomeConditionIsMet())
{
    return;
}

它是非常明显的，快速编码器一眼就能发现它。

如果不使用{和}，很容易意外地用注释更改控制流。例如:

if (condition)
  do_something();
else
  do_something_else();

must_always_do_this();

如果你用一行注释注释掉do_something_else()，你会得到这样的结果:

if (condition)
  do_something();
else
  //do_something_else();

must_always_do_this();

它会编译，但must_always_do_this()并不总是被调用。

我们在代码库中遇到了这个问题，有人在发布之前很快地禁用了一些功能。幸运的是，我们在代码审查中发现了它。