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

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。

有许多可能的方法来编写控制语句;它们的某些组合可能共存而不损害易读性，但其他组合将引起麻烦。的风格

if (condition)
  statement;

可以与其他一些编写控制语句的方法很好地共存，但与其他方法就不那么好了。如果多行受控语句被写成:

if (condition)
{
  statement;
  statement;
}

那么，从视觉上看，哪些if语句控制单行，哪些语句控制多行就很明显了。然而，多行If语句被写成:

if (condition) {
  statement;
  statement;
}

那么，如果构造不添加必要的大括号，那么试图扩展单个语句的可能性就会高得多。

如果代码库大量使用这种形式，那么下一行的单个语句if语句也可能有问题

if (condition) statement;

我个人的偏好是将语句放在自己的行上通常可以提高易读性，除非有许多if语句具有类似的控制块，例如。

if (x1 > xmax) x1 = xmax;
if (x1 < xmin) x1 = xmin;
if (x2 > xmax) x2 = xmax;
if (x2 < xmin) x2 = xmin;
etc.

在这种情况下，我通常会在这些if语句的前面和后面加上一个空行，以便在视觉上将它们与其他代码分开。在相同的缩进处使用一系列以if开头的语句将提供一个清晰的视觉指示，表明有不寻常的地方。

让我们尝试在增加j时也修改i:

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

噢,不!来自Python，这看起来不错，但实际上不是，因为它相当于:

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

当然，这是一个愚蠢的错误，但即使是有经验的程序员也会犯这个错误。

在ta.speot中指出了另一个很好的理由。的回答。

我能想到的第三个是嵌套的if:

if (cond1)
   if (cond2) 
      doSomething();

现在，假设您现在想在未满足cond1时执行somethingelse()(新特性)。所以:

if (cond1)
   if (cond2) 
      doSomething();
else
   doSomethingElse();

这显然是错误的，因为else与内部的if相关联。

编辑:既然这引起了一些关注，我将澄清我的观点。我想回答的问题是

使用第一个版本的好处是什么?

我已经描述过了。有一些好处。但是，在我看来，“总是”的规则并不总是适用。所以我并不完全支持

总是使用{}块-即使是单行//不可以，为什么??

我并不是说总是使用{}块。如果这是一个足够简单的条件和行为，那就不要。如果你怀疑有人可能稍后会来修改你的代码来增加功能，那就这么做。

我能想到的最贴切的例子是:

if(someCondition)
   if(someOtherCondition)
      DoSomething();
else
   DoSomethingElse();

Which if will the else be paired with? Indentation implies that the outer if gets the else, but that's not actually how the compiler will see it; the inner if will get the else, and the outer if doesn't. You would have to know that (or see it behave that way in debugging mode) to figure out by inspection why this code might be failing your expectations. It gets more confusing if you know Python; in that case you know that indentation defines code blocks, so you would expect it to evaluate according to the indentation. C#, however, doesn't give a flying flip about whitespace.

话虽如此，从表面上看，我并不特别同意这个“总是使用括号”的规则。它使代码的垂直噪声非常大，降低了快速读取代码的能力。如果语句是:

if(someCondition)
   DoSomething();

... then it should be written just like this. The statement "always use brackets" sounds like "always surround mathematical operations with parentheses". That would turn the very simple statement a * b + c / d into ((a * b) + (c / d)), introducing the possibility of missing a close-paren (the bane of many a coder), and for what? The order of operations is well-known and well-enforced, so the parentheses are redundant. You'd only use parentheses to enforce a different order of operations than would normally be applied: a * (b+c) / d for instance. Block braces are similar; use them to define what you want to do in cases where it differs from the default, and is not "obvious" (subjective, but usually pretty common-sense).