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。

我正在处理的代码库被那些病态地厌恶大括号的人分散在代码中，对于后来的人来说，它确实可以对可维护性产生影响。

我遇到的最常见的问题是:

if (really incredibly stupidly massively long statement that exceeds the width of the editor) do_foo;
    this_looks_like_a_then-statement_but_isn't;

所以当我出现并希望添加一个then语句时，如果我不小心，我很容易以这样的方式结束:

if (really incredibly stupidly massively long statement that exceeds the width of the editor) do_foo;
{
    this_looks_like_a_then-statement_but_isn't;
    i_want_this_to_be_a_then-statement_but_it's_not;
}

考虑到添加大括号需要1秒左右的时间，并且可以为您节省至少几分钟的调试时间，为什么不选择减少歧义性呢?在我看来这是虚假的节约。

wrt 6:它更安全，因为删除空指针是一个无操作。因此，如果您碰巧两次经过这条路径，您不会因为释放空闲内存或已分配给其他内存而导致内存损坏。

这是静态文件作用域对象和单例对象的主要问题，它们没有非常明确的生命周期，并且已知它们在被销毁后会被重新创建。

在大多数情况下，您可以通过使用auto_ptrs来避免这种需要

它通过清楚地定义循环和条件块的范围，使您的代码更具可读性。它还可以避免你意外出错。

在“总是使用牙套”的营地呆了10年之后，我最近开始不怎么使用牙套了。 主要是受到Bob叔叔关于如何编写干净代码的争论的启发，我现在相信不使用大括号编写代码更具有可读性。

if(guardClause)
      throw new SomeException(..)

Bob大叔认为，在if/for语句中编写多行代码是潜在的可读性问题。

e.g.

if(someCondition)
{
   doTechnicalThingX();
   doTechnicalThingY();
   doTechnicalThingZ();
}

应该被重构为

if(someCondition)
    doFunctionalThingA();

对我来说，不把大括号放在那里是有帮助的，因为我得到提醒，我在if块中写了太多代码。

正如其他人所提到的，我相信代码风格是团队决策。

为了补充之前回答中非常明智的建议，我在重构一些代码时遇到的一个例子是:我正在修改一个非常大的代码库，从一个API切换到另一个API。第一个API调用设置Company Id，如下:

setCompIds( const std::string& compId, const std::string& compSubId );

而替换需要两次调用:

setCompId( const std::string& compId );
setCompSubId( const std::string& compSubId );

我开始使用正则表达式来改变这种情况，这非常成功。我们还通过样式传递代码，这确实使它更易于阅读。然后，在审查过程中，我发现在某些条件下，它正在改变:

if ( condition )
   setCompIds( compId, compSubId );

:

if ( condition )
   setCompId( compId );
setCompSubId( compSubId );

这显然不是我们所需要的。我不得不回到一开始，再次将替换处理为完全在一个块内，然后手动修改任何最终看起来愚蠢的东西(至少它不会是不正确的)。

我注意到style现在有了一个选项——add-括号，它允许你在没有括号的地方添加括号，如果你发现自己处于和我一样的位置，我强烈建议你这样做。