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。

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

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).

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。