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

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();
    }
}

我认为第一个比第二个更清楚。它给人一种结束指令的感觉。使用短代码是可以的，但是当代码变得复杂时，{…}帮助很大，即使它是endif或begin…end。

// First
int j = 0;
for (int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
{
    if (i % 2 == 0)
    {
        j++;
    }
}


// Second
int j = 0;
for (int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
    if (i % 2 == 0)
        j++;
i++;

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。

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

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。