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++;
}

它更直观，更容易理解。它使意图明确。

它还确保当新用户在添加新代码语句时不知不觉地漏掉{，}时，代码不会中断。

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。

我必须承认，我并不总是在单行中使用{}，但这是一种很好的练习。

假设你写的代码没有括号，看起来像这样: For (int I = 0;I < 100;+ + i) For (int j = 0;J < 100;+ + j) DoSingleStuff ();

过了一段时间，你想在j循环中添加一些其他东西，你只是通过对齐来做，忘记添加括号。

Memory deallocation is faster. Let’s say you have a big scope and create big arrays inside (without new so they are on the stack). Those arrays are removed from memory just after you leave the scope. But it is possible that you use that array in one place and it will be on the stack for a while and be some kind of rubbish. As a stack have limited and quite small size, it is possible to exceed the stack size. So in some cases it is better to write {} to preventing that. Note that this is not for a single line, but for such situations: if (...) { //SomeStuff... {//we have no if, while, etc. //SomeOtherStuff } //SomeMoreStuff } The third way to use is similar to the second. It is just not to make the stack cleaner, but to open some functions. If you use mutex in long functions usually it is better to lock and unlock just before accessing data and just after finishing reading/writing that. Note: This way is used if you have some of your own class or struct with a constructor and destructor to lock memory. What is more: if (...) if (...) SomeStuff(); else SomeOtherStuff(); // Goes to the second if, but alignment shows it is on first...

总而言之，我不能说，总是使用{}的最佳方式是单行，但这样做并没有什么不好。

如果你编写的是编译代码，但是如果你的代码是被解释的，那么你的代码就会非常非常慢。非常轻微。

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。

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++;
}