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。

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。

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;

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。

所有其他答案都捍卫了讲师的规则3。

让我说我同意你的观点:这个规则是多余的，我不建议它。确实，如果你总是添加花括号，理论上可以防止错误。另一方面，我在现实生活中从未遇到过这个问题:与其他答案所暗示的相反，我从未忘记在必要时添加花括号。如果使用适当的缩进，一旦多个语句缩进，就需要立即添加花括号。

Component 10给出的答案实际上突出了唯一可能导致错误的情况。但另一方面，通过正则表达式替换代码总是需要非常小心。

现在让我们看看奖章的另一面:总是使用花括号有缺点吗?其他答案完全忽略了这一点。但也有一个缺点:它占用了大量的垂直屏幕空间，这反过来又会使您的代码不可读，因为这意味着您不得不超出必要的滚动次数。

考虑一个函数在开头有很多保护子句(是的，下面是糟糕的c++代码，但在其他语言中，这将是相当常见的情况):

void some_method(obj* a, obj* b)
{
    if (a == nullptr)
    {
        throw null_ptr_error("a");
    }
    if (b == nullptr)
    {
        throw null_ptr_error("b");
    }
    if (a == b)
    {
        throw logic_error("Cannot do method on identical objects");
    }
    if (not a->precondition_met())
    {
        throw logic_error("Precondition for a not met");
    }

    a->do_something_with(b);
}

这是可怕的代码，我强烈认为下面的代码可读性更强:

void some_method(obj* a, obj* b)
{
    if (a == nullptr)
        throw null_ptr_error("a");
    if (b == nullptr)
        throw null_ptr_error("b");
    if (a == b)
        throw logic_error("Cannot do method on identical objects");
    if (not a->precondition_met())
        throw logic_error("Precondition for a not met");

    a->do_something_with(b);
}

类似地，短嵌套循环可以从省略花括号中获益:

matrix operator +(matrix const& a, matrix const& b) {
    matrix c(a.w(), a.h());

    for (auto i = 0; i < a.w(); ++i)
        for (auto j = 0; j < a.h(); ++j)
            c(i, j) = a(i, j) + b(i, j);

    return c;
}

比较:

matrix operator +(matrix const& a, matrix const& b) {
    matrix c(a.w(), a.h());

    for (auto i = 0; i < a.w(); ++i)
    {
        for (auto j = 0; j < a.h(); ++j)
        {
            c(i, j) = a(i, j) + b(i, j);
        }
    }

    return c;
}

第一个代码很简洁;第二个代码很臃肿。

是的，这可以通过在前一行上加上开大括号在一定程度上得到缓解。所以:如果你坚持使用大括号，至少要把左大括号放在前一行。

简而言之:不要编写占用屏幕空间的不必要代码。

在最初写答案的时间里，我基本上接受了流行的代码风格，使用大括号，除非我能把整个语句放在前一行。我仍然认为不使用冗余大括号通常更具可读性，而且我仍然从未遇到过由此引起的错误。

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。