除了一些明显的情况外，我在任何地方都使用{}。单行是其中一种情况:

if(condition) return; // OK

if(condition) // 
   return;    // and this is not a one-liner 

当你在返回之前添加一些方法时，它可能会伤害你。缩进表示当条件满足时执行return，但它总是返回。

c#中using语句的其他例子

using (D d = new D())  // OK
using (C c = new C(d))
{
    c.UseLimitedResource();
}

这相当于

using (D d = new D())
{
    using (C c = new C(d))
    {
        c.UseLimitedResource();
    }
}

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。

如果你是一个编译器，这没有任何区别。两者是一样的。

但是对于程序员来说，第一个更清晰，更容易阅读，更不容易出错。

wrt 6:它更安全，因为删除空指针是一个无操作。因此，如果您碰巧两次经过这条路径，您不会因为释放空闲内存或已分配给其他内存而导致内存损坏。

这是静态文件作用域对象和单例对象的主要问题，它们没有非常明确的生命周期，并且已知它们在被销毁后会被重新创建。

在大多数情况下，您可以通过使用auto_ptrs来避免这种需要

总是使用花括号是一个非常简单而可靠的规则。然而，当有很多大括号时，代码可能看起来不优雅。

如果规则允许省略花括号，那么应该有更详细的样式规则和更复杂的工具。否则，它可能很容易导致混乱和混乱(不优雅)的代码。

因此，从使用的其他样式指南和工具中单独查看单个样式规则可能是徒劳的。我将介绍关于规则3的一些其他答案中没有提到的重要细节。

第一个有趣的细节是，该规则的大多数支持者都同意在else情况下违反该规则。换句话说，他们不希望得到这样的代码:

// Pedantic rule #3
if ( command == Eat )
{
    eat();
}
else
{
    if ( command == Sleep )
    {
        sleep();
    }
    else
    {
        if ( command == Drink )
        {
            drink();
        }
        else
        {
            complain_about_unknown_command();
        }
    }
}

相反，如果他们看到了，他们甚至会建议这样写:

// Not fully conforming to rule #3
if ( command == Eat )
{
    eat();
}
else if ( command == Sleep )
{
    sleep();
}
else if ( command == Drink )
{
    drink();
}
else
{
   complain_about_unknown_command();
}

从技术上讲，这违反了规则3，因为在else和if之间没有花括号，但大多数人认为它更明显，更容易阅读。当试图用不需要动脑筋的工具将规则自动应用到代码库时，规则的这种二元性就会显现出来。的确，为什么要争论呢?只需让一个工具自动应用样式。

第二个细节(也经常被该规则的支持者遗忘)是，可能发生的错觉错误绝不仅仅是因为违反了该规则#3。事实上，这些几乎总是涉及违反规则#1(没有人会争辩)。再一次从自动工具的角度来看，当规则1被违反时，制作一个立即抱怨(甚至修复)的工具并不难，因此可以及时发现大多数错误。

第三个细节(该规则的反对者经常忘记)是由一个分号表示的空语句的令人困惑的性质。大多数具有一定经验的开发人员迟早会被一个放错位置的分号或使用一个分号编写的空语句所迷惑。两个花括号比一个分号更容易识别。

因此，我的建议是，与其同意这些规则，不如同意自动格式化工具的配置，并使其成为构建过程的一部分。这些工具往往比这种争论的参与者更聪明。