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。

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++;
}

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。

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。

因为当你有两个没有{}的语句时，很容易漏掉一个问题。让我们假设代码是这样的。

int error = 0;
enum hash_type hash = SHA256;
struct hash_value *hash_result = hash_allocate();

if ((err = prepare_hash(hash, &hash_result))) != 0)
    goto fail;
if ((err = hash_update(&hash_result, &client_random)) != 0)
    goto fail;
if ((err = hash_update(&hash_result, &server_random)) != 0)
    goto fail;
if ((err = hash_update(&hash_result, &exchange_params)) != 0)
    goto fail;
    goto fail;
if ((err = hash_finish(hash)) != 0)
    goto fail;

error = do_important_stuff_with(hash);

fail:
hash_free(hash);
return error;

看起来不错。它的问题很容易被忽略，特别是当包含代码的函数非常大的时候。问题是，失败是无条件的。您可以很容易地想象这是多么令人沮丧(让您问为什么上次hash_update总是失败，毕竟在hash_update函数中一切看起来都很好)。

然而，这并不意味着我支持在所有地方都添加{}(在我看来，到处都看到{}很烦人)。虽然这可能会导致问题，但在我自己的项目中却从来没有，因为我个人的编码风格禁止没有{}的条件，当它们不在同一行时(是的，我同意我的编码风格是非常规的，但我喜欢它，并且我在为其他项目贡献时使用项目的代码风格)。这使得下面的代码很好。

if (something) goto fail;

但下一个不是。

if (something)
    goto fail;

我认为第一个比第二个更清楚。它给人一种结束指令的感觉。使用短代码是可以的，但是当代码变得复杂时，{…}帮助很大，即使它是endif或begin…end。

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


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