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。

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。

如果不使用{和}，很容易意外地用注释更改控制流。例如:

if (condition)
  do_something();
else
  do_something_else();

must_always_do_this();

如果你用一行注释注释掉do_something_else()，你会得到这样的结果:

if (condition)
  do_something();
else
  //do_something_else();

must_always_do_this();

它会编译，但must_always_do_this()并不总是被调用。

我们在代码库中遇到了这个问题，有人在发布之前很快地禁用了一些功能。幸运的是，我们在代码审查中发现了它。

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();
    }
}